tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN October 19, 2012 10:30pm-6:00am EDT
for president of the united states. [applause] i want to think melissa and the whole family for what they do every day to help make virginia a better place. i want to thank all of you who have taken the time to say hello to me. i feel will come down here in virginia. -- i feel welcome down here in virginia. [applause] i want you to know that with every breath i have, i will be talking for the next 18 days to make sure the american people understand what the stakes are in this election and what we need to do to make sure these kids have the same kind of future that we have been fortunate enough and blessed to have. if you are willing to fight for this, so am i. thank you very much.
watch and engage. next, the new mexico senate debate between martin heinrich and heather wilson. followed by a debate between carry herbert and challenger peter cooke. before president obama and mitt romney meat for the final debate on foreign policy and national security, we will take a look back at three debates from our archives. beginning saturday at 7:00 eastern, from 2004, president george w. bush and senator john carry at the university of miami. followed at 8:30 by ronald reagan and walter mondale in kansas city in the 1984. later george w. -- leader george
bush and michael dukakis. u.s. senate candidates martin heinrich and heather wilson square off in their third debate and one of the closest of the country. this race was rated as leaning democratic. we picked this up right after the opening statements. this is at -- this is about an hour. >> we will go ahead and get started with the questions, but first i will introduce our panelists. our first one to the right is the friend is managing editor. next to him is a deputy director of new mexico. to the left is kfox night anchor. we have a lot of experience on
that side of the table. walt will lead with the first question. >> heather wilson wrote that the affordable health care act is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. it should be repealed or replace. meanwhile, martin heinrich voted for the bill. if it were eliminated, what would the replacement be? if kept, what changes if any should be made? >> i think is so important to understand why it should be repealed and replaced. the health care act was a mistake. is already costing jobs in the state of new mexico. people are put on part-time rather than full time because they cannot afford the mandates in the system. it is not jobs. it takes $700 billion out of medicare. there is only one candidate for a the senate who has voted to
cut medicare and that is martin heinrich. close to $3,000 increase in health-insurance premiums just enter the last two years. it will cause a lot of rural hospitals to close. what will replace it with? there were some elements that received a broad bipartisan support. i do not mind if my kids are on my health insurance until they are 26. i want them out of my refrigerator, but i do not mind if they are on my health insurance. i think small businesses should be able to ban together and get the same rates as big business and they can go across state lines. the cost of health care is the real problem. >> i am very proud of the work we did to reform health care in this country. a father of me came -- a father
came up to me and said what it meant for his family. he said, my doctor has epilepsy. when she pops out and her coverage and is no longer eligible because she is too old to be on my plan anymore, there is not a single insurance plan that will taker. that is what health insurance reform means to me he said. we did some very good things in the bill. we major insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people for pre-existing conditions. we made sure they cannot cancel your coverage after you have been paying for years and years and are reeled into the operating room and they decide you do not have that coverage anymore. we make sure kids to stay on their parent's plan up until 26. we did not cut one benefit from the medicare program. we took the subsidies that were going to insurance companies and
put them back into the medicare program. we made it better and we gave people preventive services they did not have any more. >> you highlight things that received broad support and those are the things that should be kept. instead of building on those things, you took a major issue for all americans and you with one faction shoving it down the throats of people with things in id to they do not like and would make it harder for them to provide health insurance. nobody has a problem with pre- existing conditions, but the $700 billion he took out of medicare, one-third of it is for payments to hospitals. that is why between 15 and 20% of hospitals in this state are going to go out of business because of the health care act. >> congresswomen wilson had over one decade to fix some of
those things she said everyone agreed on and did not get it done. that plan was not perfect. i voted to repeal the 1099 rule. but it also included things like small business tax cuts. tax credits to actually get more coverage to individuals. i am proud we were able to take on such a big thing and actually get it done. >> in july, heather wilson wrote a letter to the council saying they oppose a monument introduced and instead endorsed a bill by a steep per se releasing land for new development. why do you believe the larger or smaller monument is the best for protecting these lands? >> in part because that is what people have told me, people who have come up to me and even some
who traveled all the way to washington, d.c. because this is so important to them. in particular, a sportsman who said we love the mountains, but those west of the river are really critical for us. in addition, there was a recent poll done that flat out asked people, do you want a monument? the overwhelming answer was yes. do you want one with the mountain ranges on both sides of the river or just the ordinance, and more people wanted both sides. it is one of the most beautiful places on earth. it is deserves the recognition a monument would bring and it deserves the tourism the monument would bring as a result. >> i think this is a big difference between the congressman and i in the way you go about managing public lands. i believe also that they are absolutely gorgeous. the question is, do we put 25%
of the county into a national monument without resolving all of the issues with respect to security, law enforcement, access, and water rights that are still up and enter the air. i have had a little bit of success in the congress when i was there resolving local issues when it comes to land it. the way to do it is to work with lotus -- local leaders to resolve those issues. the congressman's approach was to write to the president of the united states to ask him with a stroke of his pen to create a national monument without resolving any of the local issues that are still there. i do not think washington should be doing that and overriding local control and resolution here. those extremes in olfaction approaches do not work in the
long term to resolve land disputes. >> actually, i was writing to the president at the behest of the whole coalition of local leaders, from the mayor of las cruces to many of the local clubs. one of the broadest bipartisan groups of supporters i have ever seen. i think we should listen to them. there is an overwhelming support to a new national monument. i am very happy to join with the local support and help make that happen. >> by denying the controversy exists is not make it go away. these 30 cattle growers that have grazing permits on the west side of the county, the commission voted against having a national monument rednecks to the border of their county. there are a lot of issues with law-enforcement, particularly the issue of creating a tunnel
for narcotics trafficking within 5 miles of the mexican border. there are the mexicans that have signed petitions that said, please do not do this. you are ignoring them and will not find a solution this way. >> in 2007, a bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise on immigration reform. the compromise collapsed. most agree that we need immigration reform. what do you support, and how would you get the senate to approve immigration reform and a bipartisan group could not? >> in the united states has to have effective control of our borders. the number of people crossing the border illegally has gone down because of the resources we have put a denture there since 2005, and that is a good thing. the people still crossing tented be heavily armed narco traffickers and human
traffickers. it is very dangerous. i support legal immigration. i think we need changes to our immigration laws. there are a large number of people who come to this country that say they get a visa through a lottery. i do not think getting a golden ticket like willie want as chocolate factory should be the way to come to america. i think we want the best and brightest and hardest working people to come to this country and build it. i believe going forward what we need is to build a coalition of people who believe if america's immigration policies should benefit the united states of america. >> my father came here in the 1930's as an immigrant from germany. i take this issue of immigration reform seriously. i think we need leadership on this issue. heather wilson was a in congress
for over a decade. to this day i still cannot figure out where she stands on the dream act, one of the simplest measures for immigration reform. when i got to congress, one of the first thing i did was co- sponsored comprehensive immigration reform, a path that would fix the broken system that does not embrace amnesty but responsibility. i am proud of the leadership on that. i have also fought to secure the border. 1000 new border patrol agents. hundreds of new customs agents. we also need leadership on the broken immigration system. we need comprehensive immigration reform. we should pass the dream act. i would love to know where my opponent's stance on the dream act. >> it is fascinating to me they have been in the congress for 40 years and the first two years you were there you have an overwhelming majority of the house and senate and presidency ends all said you needed to do
immigration reform, but you did not do it. with respect to young people, i actually came to understanding this situation when one of my colleagues nominated a kid to go to the naval academy. she did not find out that her parents brought her here at a very young age and she was not here legally. i think we need to find a permanent solution for those kids. i look forward to working with marco rubio to getting that done. >> thank you. >> once again from day one, i made this a priority. the reason we do not have comprehensive immigration reform is because we do not have the bipartisan approach we had a few years ago. we have a tea party approach to immigration reform. republicans who used to be
supportive of a comprehensive approach are afraid to stand up and co-sponsor a bill anymore. you saw what happened to richard lugar in part of his support for that. i look forward to a time we can agree on that again. >> let's move on. the oil and gas industry plays a major role in mexico's economy and contributes to the revenue of the state. when you look at the regulation of the industry, would you support deregulation? do you think the regulation we have is about right? you think we need to have less regulation? >> i it support appropriate regulation. you should never have a regulation that does not have a purpose. oil and gas can be produced responsibly, and is done so throughout new mexico on any given day. we have a lot of independent producers who do that work. we also need to make sure that
when people do pollute the air or water that they are held responsible for it. i think we need regulations that do not overly burden the industry, but they make sure we are protecting our water. nothing is more precious to the state of new mexico and to any western state than in the water that we have. i used to be the natural resources trust the. this industry can produce oil and gas without polluting. we need regulations to make sure at the end of the day the bad actors are held responsible. >> most of the exploration here in and mexico is domestic government, not by federal government. i think the big difference between the congressman and myself on energy policy has to do with which direction we need to go with respect to energy. i believe in a balanced long-
term energy plan that includes increasing american sources of supply as well as conservation and enter new sources. the congressman voted for cap and trade which is the biggest tax on energy putting -- being put through in the history of the country. if fully implemented, it will mean the loss of 11,000 jobs a in new mexico and an increase on costs of $1,000 per household. he also said one month ago coal is a few of the past. coal is responsible for 70% of the electricity in this country -- rather the state. if kohl is the feel of the past, low-cost energy bills are also a thing of the past. i have to stand up and fight for those jobs. >> congresswoman wilson recently called all of those jobs a green and green.
are more than a dream to people working in the industries. today there are four to five times as many people working as there are in coal. if you look at the study done on transmission, they said we could have 25,000 new jobs if we built the transmission. we are going to have those jobs. >> you need to look at the data from the workforce solutions department here in the state of new mexico. but at the fastest growing jobs in this day, because renewals is not even on the list. all of the jobs you touted in the green world like solar is now out of business. those jobs do not currently exist. the jobs of in oil and gas do,
and they are growing, i will fight for those jobs here and now. >> thank you. we will move on to a foreign policy question. >> iran appears to be building a nuclear bomb. the president said he will not let that happen. with the consequences of two long range wars in the memories of americans, what would be your criteria for evaluating whether to support a proposal for war against iran? >> i agree with the press that we cannot let iran to have a nuclear weapon. we need to use all of our elements of natural our policy needs to be absolutely clear. when the administration does put the emphasis on trying to hold israel back twelve that sends a clear message to aroon that they should move toward a
nuclear weapon, contrary to our interest. what kinds of things can we do to prevent iran from get agnew clear weapon. first is sanctions. i strongly support them. i think there are opportunities with covert action. those sanctions, along -- among other things are having an impact on iran. we should put pressure on iranian leadership to forgo the path of nuclear weapons. if it comes down to it and the united states has to take action, the only thing that's worse than taking military action to set back iran's nuclear program is an iran with a nuclear weapon. >> representative heinrich. >> i think any time american troops are committed, there should be a clear threat to the united states. i think the president has been very clear on this, iran will
not develop a nuclear weapon. but we must use every tool in the toolbox to make sure they don't before we prematurely start talking about military action. we need to continue the diplomacy that's bringing other countries to the table with sanctions as well. we need to continue the covert action that's been very successful at slowing that program. we need to continue the economic sanctions that i don't just support, i sponsored and helped push through the congress of the united states. those sanctions are drawing a wedge between the leadership in that country and the people. they've devalued the currency, made it hard to sell refined petroleum on the global market. we owe it, given the mistakes made in the last decade, regarding the policy that our country took in iraq, to make sure we get this right. >> representative wilson? >> you asked a broader question about when is it legitimate to use mill tear force? what are the criteria that you
use? i believe that u.s. military force should only be used as a last resource when there are no other options. that u.s. military force should only be used to protect america's vital national interests under american command with very clear objectives and the force necessary to win and come home again. >> i am very pleased to hear congresswoman wilson say that. i don't believe that was the criteria used 10 years ago last week when she voted to go into a war in iraq. a war that was unpaid for, a war that cost us thousands of american lives, and a war that was based on political po lit sized intelligence and not a direct threat to the united states of america. >> let's go back to a domestic issue. john. congress has failed to pass a new farm bill. it provides subsidies many new
mexico farmers and ranchers have come to depend on. should the federal government ends agriculture subsidies? provide more? how do you propose reforming agriculture subsidies? >> i think we made a mistake about over 30 years ago now in terms of the direction that we went with our farm subsidies and our basic policy regarding producing agricultural crops. we invested in commodities and commodities alone. we did one thing well. we kept down the price of food which is very laudable goal, but all of the money we saved on cheaper food went to the health care system. because of those commodity policies, i think what we need to do in the farm bill is move more toward local agriculture, investing in food crops that are healthy for our children, we need to make sure that every school in the united states isn't selling just corn and soybean commodities as part of their school lunch program but
giving healthy fruits and vegetables and meats grown right here in places like new mexico as part of o-- of our school lunch program. we can remodel our farm policy to make this country much healthier and to save money within the health care system. >> representative wilson? >> here in new mexico, a lot of the pieces of the farm bill don't have a huge impact on the crops that we grow here and even some of them are contrary, i think, to the interests of the farmers and ranchers in new mexico, particularly when it comes to dairy because our dairies are so large and efficient. overall, with respect to agricultural policy, when i listen to farmers and ranchers on what matters to them, first an foremost is the death tax. congressman heinrich voted to reinstate the death tax. i think the death tax results in the breaking up of family farms and ranches and i voted to repeal. i co-sponsored in congress the repeal of the death tax.
the second thing that's very important for farmers and ranchers is he energy costs. i believe we need an energy policy that keeps american energy costs low. congressman heinrich's approach, putting cap and trade on oil and natural gas, would increase the price of energy and increase the price of food. the final thing i would say is that there's regulatory impacts on our agriculture industry that needs to be straighten out. there was one bill very important to farmers and ranchers here in new mexico to straighten out some of the regulation on whether state or federal regulation had primacy and congressman heinrich voted against it. it was a top priority for farmers and ranchers in this state. >> representative hine reck? >> once again, we don't have a farm bill because the tea party has kept washington, d.c. from being able to do its work. this is the first time in modern history that the farm bill has expired and it is just one emblematic example of how
dysfunctional the tea party has made our country. congresswoman wilson embraced the tea party when she signed their cut, cap and balance pledge. look that up. go to youtube and look up heather wilson, cut, cap and balance. deep social security cuts -- cuts to social security and medicare and budget deficit in the future. >> representative wilson. >> it is fascinating to me that someone could think that cutting wasteful spending, forcing congress to live within its means, and balancing the budget is extreme. i think that those times -- kinds of things a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, forcing congress to live within its means, forces the congress to set some priorities and not waste money on things like solyndra, so we can prioritize things like social security, medicare and education. that's what i would do in the congress. congressman heinrich, there have been many times when the farm bill has laptsed and we have gone four years now when
you're in congress without having a budget out of the united states senate. >> ok. we'll take part of the program here where congressman wilson will get to ask congressman heinrich a question, congressman, you have 30 seconds to ask a question, congressman you have a minute 15 to answer. then, congressman you have 30 seconds to rebut. go ahead. >> last night in the presidential debate, president obama touted coal he advocated for coal and said we now have clean coal technology and it should be part of our future energy mix. i agree with him. we've got a 300-year supply of coal in this country. do you still disagree with president obama and myself and think that coal is the fuel of the past? and what would youcy to the miners in the mine in san juan county about why their jobs should be a thing of the past? >> i grew up in a family of miners.
my father was a mine e, my grandfather was a miner. it's good, hard, honest work. and i respect greatly those union miners up in northwestern new mexico who do good work. they put food on their fam lils' tables. when it comes to policy, i'm going to be looking for the policies that create the most jobs in the future so when my kids grow up here in new mexico they've got a bright future. today, with an industry that she calls a green dream, there are five times as many people working directly in renewables as directly in coal in new mexico. i'm not going to apologize for investing in the future of our energy supply. we should be moving ever in the direction of more and more domestic but also more and more clean. it's not a dream. 20 years ago, when i was in college, my friends and i built a carbon fiber solar car we race aid cross the united states. this isn't rocket science, folks.
this industry has been around for a long time. it just requires political leadership. political leadership that my opponent is not willing to exercise. >> congressman? >> it seemed last night the political leadership came from the president of the united states. president obama and i both agree that coal must be part of america's energy future. it is low cost, it is now much cleaner than it was 30 years ago, and i'm an all-of-the-above energy kind of gal. the energy out of the san juan power plants costs about five cents a kilowatt hour. currently solar energy is four or five times that much. if coal is the fuel of the past then reasonably priced electric bills are a thing of the past an jobs for people in the mines are things of the past. i'm going to fight for those jobs and fought for low cost energy here and now. >> ok. that concludes the first half of our debate here. as i mentioned at the outset, we'll take a 60 to 90 second
noncommercial break and be right back with you. thank you. [applause] we're going to go ahead and get the second part of the debate started here. as i mentioned at the beginning of the debate, the situation would be reversed in terms of the questioning and indeed the first part of the second half of this is when we're going to ask the candidates a couple of individual questions and as i said at the beginning, if the question is asked specifically of one of the candidates that candidate will have a minute 15 to answer. there will be no rebuttal. then the other candidate will also get a question to be asked, again with no rebuttal. we're going to ask two questions of each of them before we go back into the other part of our format. so we're going to go ahead and get started.
with congressman heinrich. >> there's overwhelming agreement among nonpartisan and bipartisan commissions including one co-chaired by former senator pete domenici that we need both spending cuts and tax increases to address our nation's financial problems. are there any specific budget cuts or entitlement reforms you would support? why, or why not? >> absolutely. i could not agree more with the premise of your question. which is if we're going to be serious about this deficit, that we have to work on it from both sides. we'll see agency budgets cut. we're going to see subsidies cut. -- that we can no longer afford eliminated. subsidies for corn-based ethanol. if you look at not the infeint oil and gas producers but the big international, multinational oil and gas producers, exxonmobil and conoco, they get enormous
subsidies. they made over $100 billion last year and we're giving them billions in subsidies to do what they already do very well. we need to get rid of tax benefits that encourage companies, allow them to expense and deduct when they move operations and jobs overseas. if we're going to have incentives, they should be for companies creating jobs here at home. we should take a balanced approach. those cuts plus revenue increases, i don't think it's right that somebody like mitt romney, and he's a very successful man and he deserves credit for that, but who is worth hundreds of millions of collars and makes millions a year should by a 13% or 14% effective tax rate when our small businesses and fire tighters -- firefighters and teachers pay more than that. >> we think that this is a very important question. we're going to be asking essentially the same question of you, representative wilson. >> the setup for the question is the same but rather than
asking you about spending cuts, we would like to ask you, are there tax increases or revenue raises you would support? why or why not? >> what's fascinating is congressman heinrich said what -- was asked what cut he is would support and other than ethanol they were all tax increases. i think we have a spending problem in washington, not a taxing problem in washington. the difference between congressman heinrich and myself, i think we can get rid of a lot of provisions in the tax ked. extend the current tax code for the next year and spend the next year simplifying the tax code, taking out almost all the special provisions in that tax code, our tax code is now longer than the king james version of the bible. i just don't think it has that much to say. so you simplify it, you can
lower the rates, broaden the base and get rid of almost all of the special provisions in the tax code. what that would do is encourage economic growth. the way to balance the budget is policies that encourage economic growth and that includes tax simplification across the board. >> ok. let's move on. >> this question is for representative heinrich. you voted in favor of a debt reduction bill that calls for $1. trillion in spending cuts with half of that coming from the defense budget. military leaders said the bill would be crippling and state legislators said it would be devastating to the state's economy. can you explain your vote on that bill? >> absolutely. i voted to avoid default, just like john mccain who was just here the other day campaigning for my opponent made that exact same vote. we voted to make sure we didn't go into a double dip recession. and lead the world into a global recession.
i don't support sequestration. sequestration is based on the tea party premise that you don't raise revenues whatsoever. i believe we need to take a balanced approach. we are going to need to increase revenues, especially on those doing the best in this economy and we're going to need to cut agency budgets and stomach some cuts that many democrats are not going to be happy about. that's the only way we get to where we need to be on this. i think it's incumbent upon myself and everyone else in congress to get back to work after this election and come up with a solution that has both of those pieces, cuts and revenues, rather than embraces tea party sequestration approach. >> ok. john? >> representative wilson, do you believe it is possible to make medicare sustainable well into the future without converting it into a voucher system? and would you ever support a voucher system? >> with respect to medicare, i think the most important thing is that for those who are currently on it, that tts there
for them without any changes unless they want those kinds of changes. and congressman heinrich did not ask any seniors in this state whether they wanted $700 billion taken out of medicare to fund new programs under the health care act. i believe in the safety net programs. i think we want an opportunity society with a safety net. medicare has always been part of that safety net. i think the way to make medicare solvent is to do things like we did with medicare part d and involve competition and choice for seniors because competition helps to control the cost. in fact, medicare part d has come in 30% under the original projected cost because people have choices and competition has helped to bring down the cost of health care. >> ok. let's go back to foreign policy. >> this question is for both candidates. the so-called arab spring has been hailed by many as a push
for democracy in the arab world yet we are seeing increasingly violent incidents including the murder of the american ambassador and staff in libya. how do you walk the tight rope of encouraging the spread of democratic values like free speech and satisfying heads of state who are not supportive of these traditional american values. >> first let me express my condolences about ambassador stevens and others who lost their lives, they gai their lives for this country and for a vision of a better world. i do think that president obama was correct in working with our allies to see gaddafi removed in libya. that doesn't mean you hold up a
mission accomplished banner. this is a complicated region and the future is uncertain. we know that the past was not serving anyone's security interests and not good for the people of libya, but the future is going to take a whole lot of work and so i think you stick to your principles you support democracy when you can, support transparency when you can and you keep working to make it a safer world but we all know that this is a very volatile region and there are no easy answers. >> representative wilson? >> over the last few months events over africa and the mideast have highlighted we are still living in a dangerous world. american foreign policy always must be reflective of our most deeply held beliefs, that means a belief in freedom. but at the same time when people rebel against despots, there's the opportunity and the possibility that falks can take
advantage of that rebellion and turn societies away from freedom. we certainly saw that in 1979 in iran when a movement against the shah rulled in the rise of the ayatollah and a despotic regime. it's a time of peril. one of the most important things in a time of peril and tremendous change is for the united states to remain strong. a weakened american military means a more dangerous world. congressman heinrich said he's opposed to sequester. well if you're opposed to it, why did you vote for it? because lujan did vote for it in northern new mexico, steve pears didn't vote for it in southern new mexico and you did. within 90 days, we are going to be faced with 20,000 jobs lost here in new mexico because of the bill that you voted for. and our army will go down to the size it was before pearl harbor. >> that's not the case. the only way sequestration
happens is if congress refuses to act. i don't know anyone, at least that i work with on the armed services committee, who believes that sequestration is a good thing. i have a long history of fighting hard for the installations in my district, i will continue that same approach statewide. holman and white sands, they are critical to new mexico jobs and i'll continue to fight for them. >> representative wilson? >> we've had 700 people laid off at los alamos because congressman you failed to stand up and fight for the plutonium facility and their budget. we lost the f-16's out of kirkland. they used to have an f-16 mission, when i left they were on the short list because i got them there along with our bipartisan dell gigs to get the joint strike fighter. within four months of you
taking office, vermont got our national guard fighters and we no longer have a unique mission. the tacos are no longer a main dish, they're a side salad and as a result of that, kirkland air force base is more vulnerable. >> tell that to the people still working there today. there are a thousand people who have jobs because we saved that mission. >> we're going to move on but thank you. we're going to stay -- we're going to have a pair of questions here. >> new mexico has its largest and most expensive wild fires this year. some, including representative steve pears have alleged that mismanagement by the forest service was to blame for the size and severity of the fires. do you agree? we start with representative wilson. >> i think our federal government has failed to maintain our public lands. you can see that all across the state. the federal government over the last four years has been
cutting back on grazing permits, haven't been allowing thinning along the interface between wild lands and where people live. i sported the healthy forest act which would try to accelerate the ability of people to maintain the public lands. but it's -- our plants are full of fuel and they are tinderboxes. this summer over in he la, the beautiful he la we all wanned to see preserved for generations is gone. it's gone. we saw the same thing in lincoln forest up in rue doe so. these fires when they happen now are catastrophic. we need to get back to multiple uses of our federal lands. and that includes grazing, selective logging, and allowing people to go in and take firewood and maintain these lands as they were intended to be maintained when the national forest original legislation was passed. >> representative heinrich? >> we have the fire seasons we had today buzz of fire
suppression and its history and because of a little thing called climate change that my opponent refuses to recognize. there are lower humidity levels in those forests in june and july than there were 20 years ago and higher temperatures. i have worked in forestry. i've cut probably tens of thousands of trees, i've managed a ponderosa pine forest. i've watched as our national forests have moved toward more and more thinning and i applaud them for working the interface as well as they have. but they're not going to be able to overcome the very real changes that we are seeing around us. and it's why we have a moral responsibility to stand up and say that in the state where so many people make their living off of science, so many people are ph.d.'s and work in our national labs and our
universitys, we are not going to stick our head in the sand and prevent -- and pretend that that science does not exist. >> representative wilson? >> we have failed to maintain our public lands. and you can see the difference in the land over 100 years where they're now heavily loaded with fuel, you can't get a horse through anymore. and they're loaded with fuel, they're dry, and everybody is waiting for the next lightning strike for it all to go up in smoke. the sad thing is that the endangered species which prevented people from maintaining a lot of these public lands now really only exist on the indian reservations because they have maintained their public lands. the only saw mill left in the state is is on apache land. we need to get back to multiple use of our public lands and reasonable land management so we don't face these catastrophic wild fires in the future. >> thank you. representative heinrich.
>> once again, aye actually worked in these forests and i've been an outfitter fwide on our public lands and i will tell you that our public lands are something that is critical not only to our culture here in new mexico but also to our economy. that's why i introduced the hunt act, there are public lands all over the state of new mexico that the public cannot get to because they've been locked out of them. i've worked hard to make sure that campers and sportsmen and people of all stripes can actually access and enjoy their public lands. so that we can protect them as well. >> all right. let's move on. john? >> many of our veterans suffer from physical and mental wounds inflicted while they served our country and they're having a difficult time getting the care they need. often in trying to navigate the complex bureaucracy of the v.a. and other agencies they seek help. what would you do to assist them getting the help they
need? representative heinrich. >> i would work every bit as hard as we worked for the last four years. we have staff who are specifically assigned to work with veterans to make sure that they get all of their benefits and especially those veterans who have come back less than whole from these very challenging conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. we have helped hundreds and hundreds of veterans get the treatment that they deserve from our v.a. i would also make sure that we continue to fund the v.a., that it is not, that we don't balance our budget on the backs of these people who have served our country so -- without ever thinking twice about doing it. they stood up and they paid the price for the decisions that are made and they never think twice about it. we need to make sure we continue to support the v.a. and to make sure that the v.a. has all the resources that they need. we passed something during my
tenure called, basically a two-year budget for the v.a. so that the v.a. doesn't get caught up in yearly end of year budget battles that go on in washington, d.c. so that no one gets turned away at the front door of the veterans administration during budget battles. >> representative wilson? >> i'm a third generation air force officer and married to a guy who retired after 30 years active guard and reserve service in the united states military. our family knows what it means to be veterans and i'm proud of the hundreds and thousands of veteran is sought to help, some successfully, some -- they never give you a imagine exwand when you're a member of congress. but we worked hard to help all of them. our office was the go-to office for any veteran that had a problem. one of the things that bothered me, i was contacted by someone here in new mexico, i won't say his name but he said that he went to your office for help and told you that he had been denied disability and gave you
all the paper and six months later, actually, five months later, he got a letter back saying you've been denied disability. he knew that when he went in. you didn't help him at all. you just pushed the paperwork around. i believe our veteran december serve the kind of individualized help and attention from their congressional office that they came to expect when i was serving there. >> representative heinrich. >> i'm not going to politicize our veterans, we work hard each and every day for for them. there are many, many veterans who i've helped get disability. i can't work magic. if you don't meet the cry tier ark you don't meet the criteria but we'll go to the thovendse earth to make sure the veterans administration treats you claim seriously. if the facts are on your side, we will get you help. >> representative wilson. >> in this case you gave him a copy of the letter he gave to you five months earlier and he
ultimately was able with the help of a lawyer to get his disability claim taken care of. i think one of the things as a system we need to be concerned about though is that the waiting time has gone -- has increased substantially over the last four years for veterans to get their claims processed. and the v.a. has changed the way in which it processes those claims. we need to take a very serious look at fixing that system so that when veterans get eligible for benefits or they go up to alma gor doe, they can go -- get their books and go to school and get on with their lives. >> it's been a year since the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the change doesn't appear to have disrupted the military's ability to do its job. with military chaplains able to perform same sex marriage in places that allow it, is it time to allow fway marriage throughout the country?
>> i believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. i think it's important to understand why that is the case. why does marriage play such an important role in our society? why do we need a strong marriage culture? and the reason is the potential for children. children don't mature for almost two decades. yet we put them in cars at the age of 16. unlike other young animals, they can't fend for themselves. and anybody who has worked with children who don't have an intact family knows they're much more likely to be in trouble with the law, they're much more likely to have trouble in school, they're more likely to be parents before they're adults themselves. and so we need not only a strong set of marriage laws, but a strong marriage and pro-marriage culture in american society. this is something that is -- that has existed not just in american law but in society generally for thousands of years. and i think we would be wrong
to change the testify in addition of what marriage really is. >> representative heinrich? >> let me give you a simple answer. yes. i believe that in the eyes of the constitution and in the eyes of the government, everyone has equal rights. i will never tell any religious institution how to administer their sacraments, what is right or wrong within the halls of their church, but in the eyes of the government, we have an obligation to make sure that everyone has equal legal rights in front of the law. i was proud to work and be one of the people who overturned don't ask, don't tell. and i would ask you to compare my record on those issues with those of my opponent. she was asked at an event like this one about the legislation that senator al franken sponsored to deal with the epidemic of teasing that is really resulted in many
children losing their lives to suicide. and she said, you know, there are some things we just have to tolerate. and sort of equated it to the first amendment. that's never going to be my approach toward civil liberties. it's never going to be my approach toward equality. i'm proud of the work we did to overturn don't ask, don't tell. yes, marriage equality is the right thing to do. >> representative wilson? >> the al franken bill you have sponsored pulls funding, federal funding from schools, if there's bullying in the school. bullying for any reason is unacceptable. the question is, how do we deal with it? i think it's best dealt with by teachers and parents and local authorities. not by cutting federal funds for schools if bullying exists in those schools. that's the position i take. and i think it's much better handled here locally. like you, i'm a parent, we've had to deal with issues in the schools. we don't turn to washington to solve those problems for us.
>> representative heinrich? >> well, actually, when congresswoman wilson was in congress, she helped pass the no child left behind legislation that did just that. it took away control from our teachers and our schools and put it in the hands of washington bureaucrats. and now my sons are in public school and they have a one size fits all testing structure that doesn't help teach new mexico kids. i would repeal that legislation. >> i'm going to do something a little different here and give each of you a chance for one more rebuttal on this issue. starting with you, representative wilson. >> no child left behind took all of those federal regulations and micromanagement and let schools and school districts move money around from one federal program to the other. now i actually believe that no child left behind needed to be changed probably five or six years ago so that it would allow much more flexibility at
the local level for what success really meant. right now, the entire state of new mexico is now exempt from no child left behind, i think that was the right thing to do. with respect to what success and failure really means. but if you now have a problem with the way your school is run you don't have to go to washington. you can deal with that here electly. so you protect the funds and you allow local leaders to make decisions about how they're used and that's the best approach. >> i can tell you that -- >> congressman. >> my son carter and my son micah both go to public school. the kind of testing that is required today is not helpful to their teacher to be able to tailor instruction to them individually. in addition it's a great public school and it was on the list that didn't meet a.y.p. because it did 33 things incredibly well and one thing not to standard. nclb has simply labeled our children, labeled our schools
and it's not helping our teachers either. >> ok, we're going to move to the part of the program where congressman heinrich you get to ask a question of representative wilson. you have 30 seconds to ask that question, representative wilson, you have a minute 15 to respond, representative heinrich you have 30 seconds to rebut. go ahead. >> congresswoman wilson, you described a situation where one of the folk who was interested in serving her country going to school at the naval academy and serving our nation was someone who came here undocumented, unbeknownst to them when they were three months of age. that's a dreamer. those are the kids that the dream act is designed for. would you vote for the dream act and make it possible for that student to attend the naval academy? >> congressman, there's been a variety of versions of the dream act over the years. i think we need a solution to this and i think that senator
rubio was working toward a bipartisan legislative permanent solution to this when the department of homeland security came out with a new memo that said we're going to use prosecutorial discrergs. unfortunately, that's not a permanent solution. as i suspected at the time, i thought that not many young people would come forward to take advantage of that process. and in reality only 7% of the children who were likely to be eligible for it have come forward and moved through that process. i think we need a permanent solution for kids who have not come here through their own choice. so that they can be absorbed into the country that they know. there are a variety of way this is do that. and i would support moving forward with that kind of bipartisan solution. >> what you heard were a lot of words and no answer. you either vote for the dream act or you don't. >> there are a variety of versions of it. >> i co-sponsored it, i vowed for it, i would do it again. that's the kind of leadership
we need on immigration issues in washington today. >> ok so now we're again at the end of the program here. we're going to provide a minute for each of the candidates to proo provide closing statements. congressman heinrich you have the mike. >> my priority are new mexico's priorities. protecting social security and medicare. tax cuts for the middle class. keeping our promises to our veterans and making college more affordable for everyone. heather wilson has set all the wrong priorities. she vowed for the wall street bailout and the bush tax cuts that exploded our deficit and now she wants even more tax breaks for millionaires. congresswoman wilson supports a plan called cut, cap and balance that would require deep cuts to social security and medicare. let me be clear. i will never balance our budget on the backs of our seniors. medicare and social security aren't entitlementsing they're a promise that we've made to our seniors and a promise that i intend to keep.
i come home almost every weekend so i can meet with new mexicans, hold job fairs, raise my family. most of the people -- i fight for the people of the state. if you send me to the senate i will continue that fight. >> representative wilson? >> i believe in an opportunity society with a safety net. i'm a strong supporter of social security medicare and the safety net programs my family depended on when i was a child and my father was killed unexpectedly. these kinds of events are what the safety net programs are for. but congressman heinrich has squandered the last four years the this united states congress. we have 30,000 fewer jobs here in new mexico today than we had four years ago. we've got small businesses holding back on hiring because they have no idea what their taxes are going to be next year. we have community banks that aren't lending to small business because they don't
know what the new regulations on banking mean and they feel like they bet the bank every time they loan to a small business. i believe we need to keep taxes low, regulations clear, we need an all of the above energy strategy so we can create american jobs and we need to avoid the sequester which will be devastating to our nation's defense and devastating to new mexico's economy. i ask for your support an your vote. >> all right. i want to thank both candidates for taking the time to participate in tonight's debate. it was informative, enlightening an entertaining. our community will now make a manufacture informed choice thanks to our candid answers on some pointed questions. i want to thank our partner, kfox, for their participation in tonight's debate. on sunday, the "sun-news" will make its endorsement for the u.s. senate. the endorsement process will publish on page one. i encourage all to read it and
don't forget to vote. thank you. >> i have answered this question many, many times and it starts with the fact that from the day i was born until the day my mother died, she told me about who i am, who we are, who my brothers are, who my family is. and i have never used the information about our native american heritage to get any advantage. not to apply to college, not to apply to law school. and not to get hired for any job. >> part of this race is also integrity and character an trustworthyness. there's a test that you take and i believe she's failed that test. if you look back and see what we're talking a bt here, no one is questioning what her parents told her whence she was younger, through that time
frame. but when she was asked by the "boston herald" why is harvard touting her as a minority, a woman of color, a native american she said she didn't know. then after five weeks of misleading the painers and the reporters she said, i self-reported. she's never answered why she in fact did that. >> all this month and leading up to election day, follow the key house, senate, an governors races on c-span, c-span radio and at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> i have to be honest with you. i love these debates. these things are great. i think it's interesting that the president still doesn't have an agenda for a second term. don't you think that it's time for him to finally put together a vision of what he'd do in the next four years if he were elected? he's got to come up with that over this weekend because there's only one debate left on monday. >> so let's recap what we learned last night.
his tax plan doesn't add up. his jobs plan doesn't create jobs. his deficit reduction plan adds to the deficit. so iowa, everybody here has heard of the new deal. you've heard of the fair deal. you've heard of the square deal. mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. we are not buying it. >> watch and engage on monday as president obama and mitt romney meet in their final debate moderated by cbs' bob schieffer from lyn university in boca raton, florida. our debate preview starts at 7:00 p.m. ian, followed by the debate at 9:00 and your reaction at 10:30, live on c-span, c-span radio and on lien at c-span.org. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" we talk about consumer spending an the strength of the economy with "washington post" economics reporter neil irwin.
then a look at oil production on federal lands in the current and past administrations as well as mitt romney's stance, if he becomes president. we're joined by rayola doger of the american oil institute. later a discussion of reverse mortgages and the possible abuses by lenders. our guest is "new york times" financial editor patrick scot. washington journal with your calls, tweets and emails live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, a debate between incumbent governor gary herbert and challenger peter cook for the utah governorship. gary herbert became governor following the resignation of john huntsman, an ambassador to china apointed by president obama. from salt lake city, this debate is courtesy of kued tv and is just under an hour.
>> representing utah's public broadcasters, i welcome you to this debate between candidates. prior to ire time, a coin toss determined that governor gary herbert will provide the first opening statement. >> thank you. as most people know when i came into office, i took over governorship at a difficult time in our state's history. probably the worst economic downtime in our state since the great depression. at my inauguration i talked at my priorities, what we would focus on. one would be economic development and job creation, two would be education, three would be energy development and fourth one efficiency in state government. i'm pleased to report we have had success in every area. in every measurable area. the economy is back on the right path growing again. our unemployment rate when from 837b9% to 5.8% unemployment.
education, we're putting more money into public education than ever before. we've had a 10-year energy plan which we're developing our natural resources and reasonable and rational responsive ways and state government is more efficient than ever before, open and transparent and getting good bang for the taxpayers' buck. recognized as the best money state in america. i thank you for your support and look for your vote on november 6. >> now a 60-second opportunity for peter cooke. general cooke? >> this lech is about salesmanship versus leadership. salesmanship is selling the present. leadership is planning for the future. the governor is the c.e.o. of our state. his job is to run the state effectively, not to take credit for jobs only business can bring. right now, the part-time legislature is running the full-time governor. never in our history have the -- has the governor had so many audits by his own party.
taxpayers lost $13 million, the department of health is being audited, $800,000 -- 800,000 identities were stolen a potential loss of $100 million. the department of work force services is also being audited and we just found out radio -- radioactive waste was buried in utah and our governor didn't know. the choice is clear. we can choose salesmanship or leadership. thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen. our ground rules are simple today. the question fers candidates come directly from the studio aud yen there are students from the university of utah and representatives of voter and research information. each candidate has 90 seconds to answer, and then rebuttal time will be available only to
address directly points raised. one of the organizations involved here is the utah foundation, which has done a masterful job of identifying the issues important to the people this year. you might as well offer the first question. >> as a young and rapidly growing state, one of the fastest in the nation, we have some great needs for funding education, transportation infrastructure and other public services. but this week utah foundation released a brief showing that our tax burden has fallen from th highest in the nation to 31st in the nation. what is your approach on making utah's tax system provide adequate funding for these pressing needs of being such a young and growing state. >> the first 90-second opportunity to governor herbert. >> i don't think it's a bad thing our tax burden has gone down. we have needs out there and the ability to extract revenue from the populace is certainly a tax system. we've been competitive because we've reduced our tax rates, we
have states next to us that have zero income tax rate. and so in order to be competitive in the marketplace, it's necessary for us to be competitive in the tax rates. how you pay the bills is by growing the economy. we focus laser like on creating economic opportunity, empowering the private sector, getting government in its proper role and i used the freas get off your back and out of your wallets, and let them expand the audio. it provides revenues to the state government coffers to pay for services we think are important. it's working. last year pe put -- we put nearly $00 million of new money to go along with $3 ppt 3 million in our public education system and put money into higher education as well system of that came from an expanding, growing economy. that's the important part. you either, with a finite amount of money, there's only
three ways to pay for the services. cut something else out or raise taxes or you in fact grow the economy. i chose to do the latter and it's working for utah as we've been recognized as the most business fendly place in america and our economy is one of the best in america if not the best. >> general cooke, your 90-second opportunity. >> first of all the utah funation made an important point. since 1995, our state has neglected education. we have taken our taxes down and put money into infrastructure. that caused our education, which se the number one reason why businesses come to our state. and if we don't take care of education, we as a state cannot move forward. what is most important to do is in my administration, within the first 120 days, i'm going to show how our state moves
from 50 to 30. that means we have to put everything on the board, look at every part of our taxes from the earmarks, from exemptions, and from expenditures. because without education, without us looking at that, we lose. and i think the most important thing at this time for all of us is to realize we have kicked this can too long. we have pushed it to the side and i'll tell you as a director of economic development and brought businesses to our state with a depleting education systeming the worst in the country, the governor has gone from 50 to 50, we need to do something immediately about education in our state. and that will cause the economic development growth of the future. >> rebuttal time. governor herbert, your first opportunity? >> sounds like general cooke wans to raise taxes. there's a reason the u.a.e.
endorsed my re-election. i'm at the forefront of bringing people together for education. we're working together and putting more money into education. i can't ann for 1997, but for the last years that i've been in charge, we increased education fund fig be -- by 2% the first year, 4% last year and 5% this year. that's why we have the business commun and education community rallying around my re-election efforts and endorsing my campaign. >> i didn't say raising taxes i said make education a pyrity, which you haven't. sec is you may have the union, the u.a.e. -- u.e.a., i have the teachers. you've got an f in helping out education in this state and $200 million cannot even take our state from 50 to 49. that is because there's been neglect over the last 1 years. by the way, you know, governoring you been in for eight years.
not just last two. >> this issue is too important for me to let a time constraint immediately must've us on. i want to extend comments for both of you. another 30 seconds for you governor and another 30 seconds for you, general. >> i've had great sks in bringing people together. i created what's called the governor's education excellence commission which brought people from both parties from the schools thems from private business and together we've had 16 different initiatives that passed unanimously in a very diverse group. 15 of them passed by the sledge slayture they indicate -- to indicate this is not a priority is to belie history. education is my number one prior oity in my budget. that's why i've got the support of teachers and of business leaders, people from diverse backgrounds recognizing that we're lose ought on education. we're having great results. over 2,000 more people taking the advanced place. courses. we're having great results on our a.c.t. test scores.
for those who take it, our test scores now are eighth in the nation. we're getting good results. to think this is not a priority for me or the legislature is to ignore the historical facts of the three years i have been in charge of the budget. >> 45 seconds to you, general. >> got to go with the facts, governor. it hasn't occurred. you have to put your money where your mouth is. we have to face this issue. i don't care how many commissions you have, you've gone from 50 to 50, we keep on going downhill. and we are letting our children down, our businesses down and that's why prosperity 2020 should come out of the governor's office not out of the business community because they were trying to give you a message that we needed to make a change. >> there are many additional issues to consider. let's turn to a student from the university of utah. our subject turns on the land of utah. >> utah is known for unique geographical features and open spaces, as governor, how do you plan to maintain a balance
between developing energy but preserving utah's land, creating jobs, stimulating the tourism industry and maintaining a healthy life for utah residents. >> general cooke, the first 90-second opportunity. >> utah is defined by its quality of life. as you know, i have not supported the land grant. let me tell you why. if you look at that as a business transaction and putting all our environment in jeopardy, that's why the retail association, the people in recreational business are bind me and supporting me because it doesn't have a plan. you take, for example, it takes $00 million a year, we get from the federal government, $50 million comes in, $350 million. then you add on to that, if you're going to make the transaction and sell it, as a businessman you have to put that in escrow. that would be your $2 billion in escrow you have to put to even try to breng that land and at the same time with no plan to get water and infrastructure
it doesn't solve issues for education, that would take 15 or 20 years. then we kick the can one more time down the road. i think the most important thing is what we did as democrats under mathison who was a sage brush rebellion and guess what under the cook and ransom we'll do sage brush two. that's negotiate and work with the government to be able to have a balanced future. and we lose our environment, we lose a big part of who we are in this state. >> governor herbert, your 90-second opportunity. >> part of my administration's efforts have been on all issues to bring balance to the equation, to make sure we have balanced approach on the public lands is what we're trying to do. i created the balanced resource council, that's the name of it. the chairman of it is ted ill withson, one of the leading environmentalists in our state's history to see if we could find the appropriate balance to protect the pristine areas that need protecting.
we recognize that tourism travel is a big part of our economy. about $6 ppt 5 million. we also recognize the need to access our natural resources. we putting to a 10-year energy plan. under an all of the above scenario to see what can we do to go out an access those god-given natural resources particularly energy in the state of utah and do it in a balanced way where we can be good stewards of the earth using new technologies, we can have minimal disturbance of the environment out there, protect the flora and fauna and access still the energy that we're capable of doing. heaven knows it gives uh competitive advantage economically. steve forbes when he named uh us the number one state for business, cited the fact that in utah we have our energy costs which are 1% below the national average. are we create -- we are creating jobs, accessing capability and we're approaching it in a very
balanced way. working in negotiation with the froth to manage those public lands appropriately. >> general cooke, your first 30-second opportunity. >> we're trying to bring balance become to state government. i must say to you depoverpbor that the whole approach is not balanced. those people in the recreational industry are absolutely upset with this. there isn't a clear understanding as i just said, as a businessperson, how in the world can you take on this thing without understanding all the possibilities to make it work. i'll tell you the people in this state want clean air, they want to protect their environment, they want a strong education, and that's what i'll do. >> governor herbert, your opportunity. >> i agree with everything he said. we're not just talking about it, we're doing it. we're actually putting processes in place to get those kinds of outcomes. and we have three arrows in the quiver when it comes to public land management. the first is negotiation. we negotiate some good
opportunities in bipartisan ways with the public lands. we also have the ability to legislate. the county lands bill is a perfect example of what we're able to create in washington county. last, we will litigate. with eff roads an rights of way that need litigation because we can in the agree on whether they are roads or not and short of an agreement would have to -- you have to go to court. all three are part of our process to make sure we have proper plans and utah has input into the management of our public lands. ? we're going to turn to a subject that touches on one of the big three. when it comes down to humans it's food, clothing and shelter. you question is on housing. >> yes. utah spends less state dollars on affordable housing than just about any state in the country. what would you do as governor to increase resources for affordable housing and especially for low income housing? >> governor herbert, the first 90-second opportunity. >> i'm a free market person.
i believe the best thing we can do for anybody is to create the most available, best quality housing for the most people at the lowest cost is a free market competition environment. and so i think we work with our local governments to make sure there's competition that zoning dun get in the way of developer to develop housing. sometimes zoning gets in the way of how many units you can have per arke. makes things more expensive and affordable. the best thing we can do is to answer the demands of the market. and as somebody who's been involved in real estate for most of my adult life, i probably have a greater appreciation of people being able to live the american dream which is having a roof over your head and having a peace of real estate. we've had some great opportunity to work with the federal government to work on housing programs and the
housing authority to provide lower interest rate loans. i think that's been very helpful. we're just coming out now. and if you saw on the news last night, our housing market has recovered. we are back to where we were when we went into the great recession. we see prices starting to stabilize and growing again. real estate is a key issue when it comes to the economy. it's the first thing to get hurt and the last thing to recover. we have turned the corner when it comes to economic growth again. >> general, your 90-second opportunity. >> you bet. for the last 90 years that's what i've chosen is to provide affordable housing in this state. i had once in the time -- i can't remember now, but it was 15th in the united states, the ability to help us to take a
need for a lot of times single mothers, a lot of time for people who were just beginning their occupations in life to be able to move forward. that public-private partnership helped to bring affordable housing to help our state to be able to be the beautiful state it is. i would encourage -- i'med a advocate for affordable housing. it is the most important piece of a product that helps those who are just starting out in life and those who have had some disadvantages come to them. so as your governor, i will really make that an emphasis and continue that public-private partnership which i think is critical. >> is there a need for rebuttal on that? let me come down here which may stir the waters a little bit. for those listening on the radio you will listen to my bones creeking but on the subject of health care cost. >> yes, as a united way board
of directors member and a supporter of many organizations in utah, i'm concerned with health care costs. insurance premiums continue to grow at a faster rate than family income. if elected governor what will you do to contain health care costs in utah? >> general cooke you have the first 90-second opportunity. >> first of all, i believe in expanding medicaid. we have until november 16th to make that response. it's a great investment for the state of utah. only six% of our actual expenditures actually go to medicaid. as a small business person, i know that feeling. i've been there. i've had to meet those really, you know, demands of that high expenditure of health insurance. i think i'm opposed to senat
bill 208 which would put the state which the governor signed which would put the state behind the rest of the country in both medicare and medicaid. i do believe that the state should be able to manage its own opportunities. that can be done if we have our own money. and i think that's something we would have to negotiate with the federal government. but it's really important for us to address this issue, a state that can handle education, a state that can handle the issue of health care will be a state that will grow in the future. and we have to meet that head-on. >> governor? >> health care is certainly an important issue. it's one of the most complicated and emotional issues of our time. the affordable care act has divided this nation that we've not seen since the vietnam war. it's been so emotional because we've not gotten any kind of bipartisan effort. it's been partisan since the beginning. states have not been invited to
table to give input how it should be implemented. we don't have answers to questions today about the imply mentation of -- implementation of the affording care act. we started way before president obama took off. we've been cited as an example of good quality health care. we have the lowest cost health care, at about the fifth or sixth rated in quality. so we're doing something right here in utah. we've had our second annual health care sum mutt designed to address these issues. what it's affordable care act all it talks about who's going to pay for it. we're looking it under the umbrella of budget. can we afford it? i hate to correct my good friend peter cooke but there's no deadline, november 16th, i don't know where that's coming from. there's a cost it to. and the question is, can we afford it?
clearly we want to make sure that those who are most vulnerable amongst us are in fact, taken care of. the good news is we have a healthier economy. the healthier we are is a reflection of the wealthier we are. it has a reflection on the health of or populace. >> we now have opportunity for rebuttal time. let me refocus the question as you consider your rebuttal time. how would a person listening at home or viewing this debate come to the conclusion that voting for you or you would make a difference in their health care situation? is it possible? does a governor make that type of difference and if so, how would you make that difference? >> yes. first of all, the united way has been on this issue for a long period of time and gave some of the greatest recommendations to the state legislature and none of them were accepted. to me, this issue is another issue that we can't keep kicking down the road.
i hate to sate, but the governor, there is a deadline. on november the 16th, you have to submit how you're going to react to the affordable care act. and we have to meet that. and i feel that one of the most important things is i will listen to the community on this issue of medicaid. governor walker has supported me. the american medical association is moving forward on the medicaid. they know that's the right way to go. we keep hearing the same thing. i haven't got enough information. i don't know where we're going with this issue yet. other states are moving out. you can see by the way the people are supporting the concept of medicaid is that we need to get behind this or the state will fall behind. >> governor, i'll give you another 45 seconds. >> november 16th, has to do whether we're going to keep our own exchange of where we started. we called the exchange.
and that's the only issue. whether we do that or having the federal people come in and down their own exchange. it is about partnership. i've talked about unprecedented partnerships in the beginning of my administration. we're doing it better and more than any administration previous to my time. there's a private sector responsibility. certainly as we have moneys that come to us from the federal program we need to administer those as best we can. it gives us opportunities. it gives us more opportunity to find innovative ways to spend tax dollars more effectively and efficiently. it will be a partnership with the government having a role to play and the private sector. and we will protect the most vulnerable amongst us. >> we have reached the midpoint of our debate. we will be right back.
>> and returning once again to our studio audience. first opportunity to respond to this question will go to governor herbert. and your question? >> as you know, governor, utah is one of 12 states that has instate college tuition for undocumented students. how and what will you do to protect that law here in utah? and do you support a federal dream act? >> i support the law we have in utah. and i think it's worked well for us. the immigration is a significantly difficult issue. again, it's very emotional and it's complicated. we will come up with a broad approach to immigration, reform in utah based on the rule of law but with a compassionate component to it to keep families together and offering a worker permit. discussion is needful. we recognize the absence of the federal government. we have some significant
problems with immigration in the state and in this country. we hope to get the federal government off the sidelines and into the game. utah has received national attention and most of it positive. we've had nobody that has boycotted our businesses. we've had no one boycotting our state. and we have nobody boycotting our church. on balance, i think we've done a really good job in utah of addressing a very complicated issue that's been neglected by the federal government. our instation tuition has worked very well for us. i see no reason to change it. >> general cook, your 90-second chance to respond? >> do i believe in the dream act? yes. i want to say an important piece is not only have education but minority business
opportunities. when i was the director of economic develop for the state of utah we had a minority program to help those just beginning in this country, to have a way to start their own business. i would reinstate that. this governor has taken those things out of his operation. the second thing is i assigned the compact which is important. i think that is a way of showing how we will handle the future of immigration. the governor has refused to sign that. so the important piece is our economy,. our whole state is changing. we need to adopt that. what a great culture we have. what a great state we have and how diverse we are. let's use that diversity. let's bring it around. let's be able to build a state that shows compassion, a state that shows that we can work together and to be able to make a big difference, instead of again, splitting and dividing and that is horrible for any
state. i think under our administration that's what you'll see and the reinversions of a real exciting part of the community not only those from college but the technical schools elsewhere. >> i think it's a distortion to say i don't support the utah compact. i put out prior to the compact my own six guiding principles, trying to shepherd things through the legislature. i had proffered by own solutions. we have not backed out of our minority outreach. we meet with the community all the time. having people to outreach into the minority community more than we've ever done in history. our efforts, in fact, are bringing us together, having economic opportunity and growth is taking place that benefits everybody.
we're having great success. >> general cooke, your rebuttal opportunity? >> my rebut tal is real simple. that is sign the contract. that's showing unity right off the bat. business and the chamber of commerce, all the leaders and church organization have signed that. by signing that you bring unity. and that's an important piece on this issue. there are so many important issues that we have to discuss in this state. make education a priority. this issue has divided our state. i think we've seen the leaders of our community and religious groups say, let's be one. governor, there's no distortion. sign it or not. >> your question turns -- actually you're representing voices for utah children, another one of the research organizations that have been invited to participate today. and your question is on childhood poverty. >> one out of six children are
living in poverty, an increase of 45% since 2000. children in poverty struggle academically, are more likely to become pregnant, enter the justice system. as governor, what do you propose to do to help these kids and ensure that they become productive in our economy as adults? >> i really feel that issue. i think we've neglected that issue completely. and as we grow the economy, if we forget those that we leif behind, that will eventually as you just stated, they end up being a more expensive problem down the road. we have to focus on that issue. we can't say that that is not a part of who we are. and i would put as i go through this concern that i have on education and i -- it's going to be a big one because when you've neglecked education for 17 years -- neglected education
for 17 years an you have to make up a $17.2 billion budget -- it doesn't happen with 200,000 here and 200,000 there, that will be part of our discussion because we've got to start with our young. we have to be one. and as we say in the military, we leave nobody behind. >> governor herbert, your 90-second opportunity? >> i think our hearts break when we see people in poverty. we have a country that's rich in abundance and certainly our state is on the road to recovery. if there's even one person in poverty, it's one too many. i was down at the food bank here just a week and a half ago working there to help. and you know, as you see those boxes of groceries being put together, it makes you wonder why that's happening. it will take a combination of efforts to make sure that we
take care of those who are needy among us. the scripture tells the poor will always be among us. we will find the best solution for those who are needy. the government has a role as a safety net provider. we want to make sure that we're doing that in the best way that we can. we recognize that the first phone call probably shouldn't be to the federal government. it ought to be to ourselves as neighbors because it's a much more efficient way to help people. if i reach in my pocket and give you a dollar, you get the dollar. growing the economy is the best thing i can do. making sure they have a job so they can help themselves. the last 12 months those who have accessed food stamps have dropped 3.1%. for those accepting taft has dropped 17.9%.
so growing the economy is a big part in helping those who are impoverished and in need. >> rebuttal time, general cooke. >> we need to get that money back in. i'm not saying that the federal government needs to step in. i agree that each one of us should help as we move forward. but again, without education you can cannot have an economic development program. and without that we can't move this tide up. that's important to realize. probably the most important thing here is that we have lost -- this economy has not recovered. in the last three months we have started to see unemployment go. and then we have 80,000 people still without jobs and that needs to be taken care of. >> governor herbert? >> if you wonder about the economy and i believe it is true. it's certainly a part and parcel to help the needy.
just go to the salt lake chamber of commerce web page. as they look at the last numples, -- numbers, our economy has grown 3.6%. our historical average has been 3.1%. we've gone through the worst economic times in our state's history since the great depression. and we've got to this trough and we've peaked over the top. that's going to help our needy people among us an our education has been a significant effort. i've said from the very beginning we cannot have long-term sustained economic growth without a good education program. and we are doing that. we're having significant success in our education efforts more so in the last three years than in the last 10. >> another question. governor herbert you'll have the first 90-second sfons this. >> do you support same sex marriage? and if not, what do you support and what is your stance?
>> i don't support same sex marriage. marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. we have -- that's part of our constitution. and in utah, unless that constitution's changed anything akin to that will be rejected by our constitution. that being said i certainly believe that people ought to be treated with respect and their civil rights ought not to be violated when it comes to housing, medical care, when it comes to business opportunities an job hiring and i think in utah we're doing a pretty good job of that. i like the approach we have here in the state where we have some quality laws that are coming from local governments in a bottom-up approach. i think that's the way it should happen. local governments recognize their own community interests. i don't like the top-down approach. i rail against the federal government giving us a one size fits all on education or those kinds of things that we get
from the federal government. likewise as a local government official myself and my past, i don't like the state telling the local government what to do either. i think we ought to treat each other with respect and kindness and civility. but i do not support same sex marriage. >> general cooke? >> you're correct, the constitution limits us on that. but let me tell you what i am for. i am for a statewide nondiscrimination law because like anything anywhere else you can't just have small communities put together, nondiscrimination laws. it's supported by the l.d.s. church and the chamber of commerce. let's be a church that talks about nondiscrimination. that's the next step the governor should do. that's the next step a legislature should do. that's not forcing things down -- i'll tell you, i go to so many cities and the questions they ask me, all the
regulations that the state government is pushing down on our local government. this is not that. this is just showing we're a compassionate state. that we have the capabilities of reaching out and showing who we are and caring about equality and nondiscrimination. let's get that done and be -- a proud state to be able to stand on that. >> rebuttal. >> he's disavowed the democratic party that supporting marriage. i believe the approach is better from the bottom up. i don't know if he's speaking for the l.d.s. church. but i've never heard them say we need to have a statewide law. again, i think he's overstating his position or at least the
position the l.d.s. church and the process we have in place which is an evolutionary process as the market bares and as people have the desires to change comes from the people, the communities and will eventually go to the state. >> yeah, i think that's kind of condescending. i will clarify that the l.d.s. church did support the salt lake city concept of having nondiscrimination. i did jump to that conclusion. but i can tell you that to be a compassionate people we need to make this move and as a state we need to show that. that's important. and to be able to say that i disavow or anything else -- i am a utah -- i put utah first. i'm a utah democrat and i'm proud of that. there are some things that i disagree on the federal level. but when it comes to nondiscrimination, no american -- i fought for that in the
military. and i think that's important. we do it in the military. we can do it here. and that's the way we need to go as a state. >> back to our audience. another question from a student. and you have a number of questions written down there. i wonder if we could probably just get to that first one. >> ok. utah's previous governors were both governs were against dumping radioactive wastes. are the dollars worth jeopardizing utah residents? >> right. you heard my opening remarks that we have found nuclear ways right here in our state. and by the agreement with energy solutions that nuclear waste cannot be put on our state without his signature. so that is horrible. and then to think that we would have put on the energy solution
on the board to oversee that, to me, again, shows where there's extreme discrepancies on where we need to go as a state. we cannot be a dumping ground. we will not be a dumping ground in my administration. and that's something that utah has to stand for because we've had enough of a problem with downwind. now we have side winds coming from the other side that's got to stop. and there's where leadership as i started from the begin is different from salesmanship. we have to lead forward. you cannot have a conflict of interest with businesses and that is a prime example why there's a lot of voter -- people in the voting population don't really want to vote because they see things like this. that gives confidence in my kids or anything else that there is not oversight. and you need a watchdog and you need balanced government and that's how it happens. >> governor herbert, your opportunity to respond?
>> well, this isn't a dictatorship. we are a state of laws and a federal government of laws. whether the former governors didn't approve of nuclear wastes being stored in utah, i would let them answer that. what we do know is that they understood the rule of law. there's been a permitting process in place to take low-level class a waste. it's identified by the federal government. it's labeled and because of that they are permitted to bring it here. it has nothing to do with resigning it. they have a right to bring in for low-level class a waste. we have oversight responsibilities as a state. the issue that took place here not too long ago where we had some that got in that was mislabeled, actually got reassembled and came back as low-level class a waste was a mistake made by the federal government from the department of energy. it was our people working with
energy solutions and discovered it in their sampling process and made them go back and look through their computer data to discover 17 different containers that had been scattered out there. we have good oversight. health and welfare has to be the primary concern. but they have a right to store class a waste. they have a certain finite capacity. they will probably turn over the responsibility to the federal government to maintain it from that point forward. jr rebuttal -- >> rebuttal time. >> i fought for a free country. i understand the principle of law. it's class c. class c was founded. and i'll tell you that is a serious oversight problem by the governor and by his
radiation committee and everything else. that's a fact. governor, you keep trying to push away from the facts and education and here and you've got to stop. >> governor, you have the opportunity to respond to that. >> yeah, sure. where to begin? you could distort the facts and draw indirect conclusions. i don't stand throughout with every train of waste that comes in and stick any finger in the pot. we have people that do that. there's a process with the federal government on how you ascertain what the level of the waste is. energy solutions can take class a waste. there was no question it was mislabeled by the department of energy. that's a federal problem. it's been discovered. a lot of people agreed to the solution. the interesting thing is is that the level of radioactivity has not changed at all out there. there's no public safety issue.
and so this scare mongering taking place is just unfortunate. >> we have another question from a student from the university of utah. >> the utah transparency project, a project headed by the university of utah students created a detailed list of best practices that could be made in local government. however, change can occur on a statewide level. as governor, how would you make state government practices more transparent throughout the state? >> well, we've done a number of things. i had the same concerns when i came in as governor. we created a utahtransparency,.com website so you can see where the dollars are being spent, who's getting the money. you can drill down and get very detailed analysis of how we're spending the money, what we're doing. secondly, i called upon to find more efficiency -- utah has
always been recognized as one of the most efficient states in america. how can we get better? i got together a committee of people inside and outside of the government and review every department, every cabinet member. they had to see what we could do optimize our services to the taxpayer. they found out, one, we were pretty efficient. and two, they found out there was 56 recommendations that we could implement that could improve it even better. we've done some wonderful things with state government to make it more efficient and transparent. we've managed the money really well. we're doing more with less. we had 22,069 employees. at the same time our population has increased by 600,000. so we are doing more with less.
the taxpayers are getting good bang for their buck. we've never had a more efficient government than the government we had today. >> and general cooke? >> in my opening remarks i showed all of the different audits that are being taken on right now by the government. so i don't call that efficiency. number two is can we be more transparent? yes, we can and we should. and that transparency starts at the top. under our administration it will be transparent there. will be nothing that you will not know about what's going on in the governor's office. those secret last-minute meetings, i will not have monthly press conferences. i will have weekly press conferences. that's the only way we'll give confidence to the people to believe back in government. there is too many behind the door meetings, too many lack of opennesses and i'll tell you another thing i want to do, is i want to take our cabinet
meetings throughout the state and let people in each part of our state to be open and see the transparency of our government and ask questions that we can meet and address because the less -- unless we get that openness in government -- i don't care -- i don't know how you come up with we're the most efficient because you're not. but transparency has to occur. my kids were asking me the other day, dad, explain to me what transparency means. what i've learned in the military is you don't have to be wondering when somebody is not watching what you're doing. that's how it is. government should be open. it should be for the people. we should be servants of the people. we shouldn't hide our information. we need to be there for you and you will be there for us an we can give confidence and solve problems. >> rebuttal time? >> it doesn't surprise me general that you find problems. it's the political season. your job south bound to find problems out there. i'm sure if i gave you a plate
of doughnuts, rather than seeing the donut, you'll see the hole. that's just part of the season you're seeing here today. being a good leader is getting good results and good outcomes. we're getting those. it's not absence of problems. we have rules and regulations an laws that we have to follow when we have problems. we've discovered them. we've taken corrective action and we've got good result as recognized by people outside of our state's borders. >> general cooke, your 30-second opportunity. >> i think governor if you'd give me a donut, i'd probably eat it. but i want to say something important about the future of this government is that you know, honesty and transparency comes out and it's felt by the people and then they get excite about being back in government. i don't sense that. and when we can clearly talk about how efficient the government is, let me tell you,
when i was a director for the state of utah, forbes magazine vote us to best place to do business. i can show you year after year for the last 20 years that we've had those same kind of great remarks from forbes and etc. >> we have time for one last question. unfortunately, i will have to limit your response time to 45 seconds only. >> dirty air and dirty water hurt our tourism. will you reduce the urban air pollution by reducing utah's oil dependence on cars? >> absolutely. and we have to invest in mass transit. we cannot ignore the clean air. it's hurting our health. we ve regulations from the e.p.a. but they were saying if
we don't meet that we'll lose our highway funds. we have to address this again. leadership vs. head-on government. we have to meet that. >> we're working with the mayor from utah city. a few years ago we didn't use recycling. now we recycle. some of it is a cultural change. our state's fleet has been converted to gas cars. we've invested $4 million a study to make sure we're dealing with the issues out there in the basin. i just went to the valley with a council. worked on air issues. all of us a have role to play, not just government but we as
individuals and businesses have to come together to clean up the air. >> we must now close to closing statements. it was determined that governor herbert would have the first opportunity. that's not correct, is it? governor herbert, you will have the first minute opportunity. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to explain our visions for the state of utah as we go forward. i have a track record i'm proud of. wife had great success working together. when i first was inaugurated we talked about unprecedented partnerships giving us unlimited possibilities. that clearly is of open as we see positive advancements in every area. is it perfect? no. but is it better? positively it's better. we have people working on education, transportation, health an human services, and in every area we're having
success. people outside of our state are telling us about our successes, gives us accolades. that shows leadership. i'll finish by saying "the wall street journal" and talking about the successes of utah said that utah is the brightest star on the flag. that's because under my leadership we're coming together in unprecedented ways, giving us unlimited possibilities and tremendous effort in the state. vote for herbert on november 6th. >> governor cooke? >> i think the most important that could happen with leadership is to have balance, have balance in our government where people can have open expression an we can feel that we're a part of a government that can make a difference. that's the most important factor of our next state.
we can do it. we did it in the olympics. we can do it now. that will make this state that much better. the important reasons why i'm running is because that balance is as a military person, i fought for democracy. i fought for the ability to have nondiscrimination. i fought for the beliefs that we believe in our country for our children and our future. all i can say to you, vote -- a vote for cooke will mean an opportunity for us to move forward. >> gentlemen, thank you for your time today. we remind you that election day is november 6. we encourage you to go to voteutah.org. on behalf of utah's public broadcasters, i'm frank
verdoia. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> from 2004, president george w. bush and senator john kerry at the university of miami. followed at 8:30 p.m. eastern by president ronald reagan and former vice president walter mon dale in kansas city in 1984. and later vice president george bush and michael dukakis in 1988 from ucla. that's at 9:50 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> to focus on the presidential debates this month, c-span is asking middle and high school students to send a message to the president as part of c-span's student cam video documentary competition. students will answer what's the most important issue that the
president should answer for a chance to win $5,000 and there's $50,000 in total prizes. it's open for students age 6 through 12. go online to studentcam.org. >> next, republican ted cruz will debate paul saddler for the open texas senate seat vacated by kay bailey hutchyson. it's curtsy of kera tv. ted cruz is the former solictor of texas. it's just over an hour. >> this is the texas debate. we're broadcasting live from the kera studios in dallas and online at texasdebate.org. during the next hour i'll be the moderator for the final debate between republican ted cruz, the former solicitor of
texas and paul saddler. welcome to our panelists -- ross ramsey, and pedro rojas, anchor for univision in houston. we invite you to join the conversation on twitter at keranews #debates. we're going to begin with the concern that many texans put at the top of their list. >> a lot of people come for a better way of living. by coming here, they should stay here if they can abide by just the simple laws of no stealing, not doing anything, crime worthy. >> children of illegal immigrants should be allowed to
stay but the actual illegal immigrant should be deported. >> they should go home. >> they're working the jobs that we don't want to work at, at a pay we don't want to work at. so legalize them, and ensure that we collect their income tax. >> we are going to start our discussion on immigration with a question from peggy. it goes to paul saddler. >> we're looking for some specifics of how you address the 1.6 million or more, people without documentation. how would legal status work? >> it's important for us as a state to deal with this issue. if we don't start dealing with it, 10 years from now we're going to still deal with it. we have a very rich, diverse culture. we need to secure our border. we ought to pass the dream act. we ought to do a temporary work
permit so they can actually participate as the gentleman describe on the screen. and there should be a reasonable pathway to citizenship. that can be not at the front of the line but at the back of the line. you can put whatever restrictions we want as long as they're reasonable. speak english, not having commit a crime and these things will help us move past this. no one's giving amnesty. they still have to earn their right to become an american citizen. but we need to get past this because our state's too important to be divided as it is. >> mr. cruz, you want to strengthen border security and you want employees to verify immigration status. you want to ensure that. how would that affect the people who are already here without documents? do you think that will go away? >> i think immigration is an issue that we have to address from many directions. i understand firsthand that we live in a nation of immigrants.
we live in a land that has been a beacon of hope and opportunity to people all over the world. and i think immigration reform needs to address illegal immigration and legal immigration. with respect to illegal immigration i think as a subject of national security we need to get serious. both parties have talked about this a long time. the parties are interested in demagoguing. we need to get serious about securing the border. >> can you specify it? because securing the border would prevent people from coming but there are 1.6 people already here. what would we do with them? >> i think we need a staged approach. the first stage is getting through all the talk and actually securing the border and that involves fences,
walls, technology that involves boots on the ground tripling the border patrol agents so we can actually know who's coming in this country. i think we need to combine that with a strong e-verify system that requires proof to be here legally to be able to get a job. i think it would enable a rational conversation of legal immigration. we need to improve legal immigration which i don't think we can have that conversation until we can demonstrate we can strengthen the border. >> but until then, people are still here. will that be worked out later? >> as i said the first step is secure the borders. once we demonstrated we can solve that problem, then we can have a rational conversation about what are the demands and improve the system where people wait years or even decades to come here legally. as a practical matter we're not going to be able to get that
done until we can actually show with can secure the borders. >> follow that a little bit. do you think you're out of step with your party because you have a guest-worker program that the convention supported this as you were. you don't support that. >> i think my views are consistent with the views of most texans. i have traveled listening to texans. it's only in the political world that this stuff gets complicated. for most texans, americans they're concerned about a border that's not secure. they're concerned about the fact that we don't know the background of those coming in this country particularly in a post 9/11 world. it is important and my message from day one in this campaign is we should continue to be a nation that welcomes and celebrates immigrant.
as you know i am the child of an immigrant that came here with nothing. >> do the people that are already here not get dealt with? >> i think the way to move forward and have a discussion is to start by securing the border. >> just a minute because we've giving you a lot of time. would you like to add anything? >> sure. one of ways you can deal with it is give people work permits. when it's up, it's time to go home or apply for citizenship. to secure the border -- you know, we all want to secure the border but i walked the border in el paso with the border patrol.
and i asked them what kind of surveillance do we have here? we're basically using vietnam surveillance. i went to fort bliss, i said can you train border patrol with that surveillance? they said absolutely we could. here we have the most modern surveillance. so why aren't we doing that? and the answer was why has no one asked us to. >> we're going to move on to another subject, a topic that involves immigration. >> mr. cruz, the united states wet foot-dry foot program allows cubans to come here and it's an opportunity not available to immigrants from
other countries. should we extend that to others? >> well, the reason we have a different legal status for cubans is because the situation in that country is different. it is an oppressive, totalitarian regime that tortures and murders its citizens. the united states for centuries has allowed a situation of people seeking refugee status from political oppression and torture. i'll point out this is something for me that's in the about tract. my father was tortured by batista and my aunt was tortured by castro. i would love to be part of anything for this adjustment act. if there is a regime that respects the rights of its citizens and doesn't persecute the rights of its citizens, of course, we should clang the rules. but until that happens, i think it's important to recognize the
oppressive regime. >> are there other people that we should extend that policy to? >> it's been long standing for people feeling political persecution, we have granted them refugee status. and that's been true for nations all over the world. >> mr. saddler? >> i think it's locked in to a comprehensive immigration reform which is what we need. we need it for our state. we need it for our nation. we deal with a billion dollars of commerce. the people coming from mexico here are seeking a better way of life. they're seeking part of work. they're seeking part of the american way of life. and i think that it only makes sense that we do a comprehensive immigration reform package that includes everyone. i think it's the only way we get past this moving forward. and the diversity of our state is so important and this economic enjib that engine with
mexico, they're our number one trading partner. we talk about increase border patrols. we have 26,000 border agents today. if you triple them that would be 100,000 border patrol agents on the border. would you do these things with people that are part of our community, part of our heritage and our families? i think we've had enough division on this issues. and the issues that you describe with cuba we should have a comprehensive program. >> we're going to move on to another question involving immigration. this one comes from pedro row has. >> thank you, gentlemen for being here with us tonight. as you know president obama, the fair action program has given a lot of hopes for young people in our done there that are awaiting to get either a legal status. if elected, what would you do?
>> it's an executive omplte i could -- order. but i have said that i support the dream anth. if you talk to these people who were brought here through no fault here of their own, they are as much american as my children except they don't have a document. they want simply the american way of life. we are america. and if we can't see our way past giving them the chance of the american way of life, there's something wrong with that. they deserve the opportunity. they've been in our system. many of them have gone to iraq and afghanistan and made promises and it hasn't been delivered to them. this is a travesty as a state and a nation. i would support the dream act. my concern about the executive order is that it can be taken away. and so now you have all these young people who have trusted
us, trusted an order of the president of the united states, identified themselves, even their identity and their location and if a new president comes in and takes the order away, have we jeopardized them? there's a fairness issue that i don't think is right. again, these are innocent people. >> what would you do if elected? would you endorse some sort of a dream act in congress? i know senator rubio has a republican version of the dream act. what would be your view on that? >> my view -- i don't agree with what president obama has done on this. because just about a few months ago, president obama was asked if he had the response to do that. and his response is he had no constitutional authority to grant amnesty without changing federal immigration law. then as we get closer to an election, it materialized. one of the reasons people come do the united states is because
we're a nation that respects rule of law. i don't think we should have a president who is setting aside the laws that are passed by congress and passed boo law. and i think passed into law. and i think it was done for political purpose. immigration law should proceed through the legislative process and not through an abuse of executive authority. >> thank you. >> ok. thank you very much to everyone. we're going move on now and find out how the candidates are going to deal with another important issues to voters who have strong opinions about this issue, it's the issue about the economy. >> there needs to be some changes legally for big corporations to have some kind of incentive to stay in this country, to provide good employment to people. >> if you can export jobs where the labor rates are cheaper, you'll never maintain a good,
healthy job market in the country. >> for someone young like me, the most important thing is job. how you get jobs going is you help small business. >> medicare and social securities, those are not entitlements. it's my money. i deserve it and that money shall be there. >> reducing the federal debt, i want to know how they're going to do it? are they going to take it away from medicare or are we going o -- to increase the tax burden on a certain segment of the population? >> we want to start by talking about the federal debt. you both said it's a top priority for you and that is reducing federal spending. as you both know, i think, entitlements make up about 40% of the federal budget so you would almost have to certainly reduce some of those entitlements, the cost of their entitlements and that would include medicare and many
texans consider that a right of theirs and they're counting on it. mr. cruz, you want to give recipient as fixed amount of money, a voucher to buy their medicare. the congressional budget office that over time seniors will pick up the cost themselves and those vouchers will be less valuable. i want to know why you think this is a good way to provide medicare to our seniors? >> let me start with principles which is that social security and medicare are foundational promises that we have made to our seniors. they have come to rely on it and expect it. and we need to honor those promises. i think there's a real difference in national politics between how the two parties are approaching this. >> let's talk about you. why is this a good idea? >> i am saying exactly that which is right now social security and medicare are
careening toward insove van si and bankruptcy and the democrats are doing nothing to say those programs. i think what they're doing is reckless because they're not stepping forward and saying let's reform these programs so that number one every penny will go to current seniors. and number two, we reform the programs for the next generation that is retiring. paul ryan has -- >> talk about the vouchers if you could. >> i know that's what you want to talk about. but actually the proposal from governor romney and paul ryan is not just a voucher. what it does is it preserves every penny of benefits for existing seniors and for people of my generation. it provides two option. one they ask stay with traditional medicare, get exactly the same benefit they're getting now, or two, they can have the choice of having premium support that will enable them to purchase a
private policy and that will bring competitive forces to reducing the cost. >> now critics believe that the insurance -- the private insurance will only accept those people -- those seniors who are fairly healthy but the sickest seniors then will end up being on a government plan and that in the end the government plan will become way too expensive because the sickest medicare patients will be paid through the medicare plan. they don't believe that will work. they believe this doesn't pan out. >> well, the proposals typically have a pro biggs on milk skimming on skimming off the healthiest seniors. i'll point beyond that, this idea has a long bipartisan history. a number of prominent democrats have supported it. it's only been in the past number of years coincidentally when a presidential candidate has happened that the democrats have unified in demagoguing the
issue. but the problem is they don't have an alternative. when you ask them, how do you save medicare? they don't have an answer. what he did is take $17 billion to fund obama care which is going backwards if we're going to save that program. >> let's ask mr. sadler about this. what changes would you make to save cost? >> well, thank you for asking. but we don't have to change the programs. we don't have to. we have to make some hard decisions to keep them. and we can keep them for all of us. this is the promise we made to each other. that is promise that we made that our seniors would live with dignity and have hospitalization coverage. social security is a pretty easy fix. it really is. there are three options, one you can raise the cap currently that we use to apply taxes to. if you have $106,000 worth of
income you pay social security on that amount. if you don't you pay a reduced rate because your income is less. >> would you talk about medicare too, please? >> i will. if we just raise it back to the original framework we add a decade and a half to security scumplete there are really simple things we can do to save security for all of us. medicare is more difficult because of rising health care costs. we don't have a good answer for how to deal with rising health care costs. we have the most competitive market in the world and we have health care costs going through the roof. one of the things that the affordable health care act does in combination with medicare is it tries to tether those two things there's a cap on health care costs.
the affordable health care act gazette. the extensive program. >> and do you see any cuts that you would reduce? or would you allow it to continue as it is? >> there are cut on things like administrative costs and salaries and things for the providers, but it maintains the benefits. those are the things that matter. the $716 billion cut from providers, we will have to watch that. are we going to make those cuts too soon and too fast? we will have to monitor that. every program you enact requires that type of watching to make sure it works out and it works correctly. the affordable health care act does -- >> thank you.
we will move on. you do both support very different plans in how you would approach this. we will move onto another question. this one goes to mr. sadler. >> everything should be on the table, including letting the bush tax cuts expire, even for the middle class. why is that a good idea? >> i am not sure i can explain this as well as i can. let me try. our debt is at 16 trillion dollars. i hate the debate we're having in this country. we are writing tax policy basically a what is your constituency and your political party. it is the obligation of all of us. we have to cut spending and balance our budgets.
even if we do that, we might eliminate the deficit in some time in the future. not all we are still in afghanistan. pay down the national debt requires more an era. yet to make revenue at some time. when you do that, it is a shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. >> please summarize. we are running a little bit behind. we're getting great answers, but we need to be sustained. >> ok. >> thank you. >> it may not happen all at once or immediately, by we do need to discuss it. i do not like the we are pitting one american against another. >> the ceo of the congressional budget office has suggested that when the bush tax cut?
i would be an up to provide enough money to avoid the fiscal cliff everyone has been talking about. is a country better off? >> i think if we raise taxes, it would kill jobs. independent businesses have estimated that barack obama's plan for raising taxes on small businesses and owners that it would kill jobs in our economy. our economy should be about choices. it is a clear choice between mitt romney and barack obama. in this race it is a clear choice. if i am elected, i will not support raising taxes on any texans. my opponent has said that every taxpayer in texas, he would
consider raising taxes on. he is aggressively more pro tax raising than barack obama. my opponent has said that he would raise taxes on every taxpayer. that is a sharp contrast. that is a choice for the texans to make. >> can i come in here? >> sure. >> your not going to pay down that national debt by cutting spending. you cannot do that. no one with any intelligence has come to that conclusion. we have to pay down our national debt, but -- >> thank you. >> the national debt is a shared responsibility for every
american. >> can i jump in here? this is the most important topic that we are discussing. >> we will allow you to answer succinctly if you can. we will ask one more question on the economy. go ahead. >> i agree with mr. sadler that we cannot solve the national debt by cutting spending. the only way to do that is to grow. what we need to do and be is the aggressively pro-growth. we need to get growth up to historical levels. that is they turn around the debt. that is how you get to do 3 million people out of work. -- 23 million people back to
work. >> let me ask you something quickly. if you were to eliminate the income tax for the highest earners, it is estimated that by doing that alone you would avoid the fiscal cliff. we would not be in the position we are on now. why does not not a good solution? >> it would kill jobs. if you talk to texans in the state, the issue they are most concerned about is jobs and the economy. if you raise taxes on job owners and entrepreneurs -- the best way to get things done is scaling back the abuse of regulation from this administration that is hurting small businesses and tax reform. that is how you create jobs. >> that is not a history that is correct or correct.
you cannot grow your way in this. not any intelligent person that has looked at this. they are simply too great. we can be honest about this and with the tether and americans are we can keep on doing this simple answers over and over again and keep digging a deeper hole. >> would you maintain the tax cuts for the highest income earners? are we to eliminate it? >> you have mixed up the fiscal cliff with the national debt. they are different issues entirely.
i plan to reduce the national debt can take place anytime in the future. to avoid the fiscal cliff is about cutting back on spending and balancing our budget. what i am saying to people is that if you are serious about reducing the national debt, we will have to put some kind of plan in place. there should be a shared responsibility from all. we need to pay down our national debt. >> quickly -- >> when america was attacked on 9/11, we were all attacked. >> you can either cut spending and try to jack up the prices, but other way can do is to cut spending and an act program
policies that will allow businesses to create jobs. >> we want to continue talking about jobs. pedro has the next question. i think it goes first to mr. cruz. >> in july, the republicans in the house my view in terms of deconductions -- deductions is we should take over the tax code. one of the things i'm optimistic about is next year, the next couple of years, we'll have the potential for real bipartisan cooperation. right now, $500 billion a year is spent just on tax compliance, on lawyers, on
account tabt -- on accountants, on wasted expense, that's about the same amount as our entire defense budget. if we simplify the tax code, and you look historically, some of the greatest examples of bipartisan defense have been tax simplification, whether under john f. kennedy or ronald reagan, where you saw both parties come together, lower marginal rates, broader rates, that's how you get growth. >> that was called raising --
taxes. if you lower the rate and broaden the base and get the same amount of revenue and say you're going to close loopholes, loopholes are deductions by some business or entity that wants them. you're requiring that entity or group to pay more in taxes. you are raising taxes. mr. romney is raising taxes, mr. obama is talking about raising taxes and so are you. i've been through this before. i went through it with the state of texas. we tried to close loopholes, exemptions and deductions, lower property tax rates and every group in the state said you're raising taxes. you're raising tacks on us. do it to somebody else but not me. the big shock will be if you get elected to the united states senate, if you try to do that, the u.s. chamber, grover norquist who you pledge your support to, will jump out and immediately say, you're raising taxes. six year fls now, someone will be sitting in this chair and accuse you of raising taxes by closing those lap hole -- loopholes. you'll say, paul sadler told me that's true.
if you close loopholes and remove deductions you're raising taxes. >> go ahead and respond. >> i think mr. sadler and i have different definitions of raising taxes. if you eliminate loopholes and don't lower rates, that is raising taxes. but if you eliminate loopholes and lower rates so that the tax rates are not going up, that's not raising taxes but you look historically, every time that's been done, revenue goes up. i am all for increasing revenue through growth. through helping, if small businesses are doing better, if more people have jobs that are producing more, tax revenue goes up but not through jacking up rates but helping small businesses and entrepreneurs create more economic growth. >> every time you take away someone's exemption and they're paying a tax they didn't pay before, they'll say you raised my taxes. >> it depends. it's true if you done lower the marginal rate. but if you eliminate a deanaheim mighty ducks and lower the rate -- eliminate a deduction and lowe the rate, the amount of tax paid on that income can be the same. that's not raising taxes if you're writing a tax -- a check for the same amount. >> in the to you but if you
lower charlie's taxes and lower my deductions, that's a tax increase. >> it is a tax increase. >> we could talk about this all night it's very important and interesting but we want to take advantage of the time we have left to talk about a few other things. we're going to get back tooth policy discussion in a moment. what we want to do now is give both of you an opportunity to compare your records so based on a coin toss, mr. cruz you get to speak first. tell us why you believe you would be the better senator for texas to send to washington. >> there are two approaches to the economy and job creation. one is continuing down the road of the obama democrats, more and more spending, more and more debts, higher taxes and more and more regulation of the economy in our lives. we tried that for three and a half years and it doesn't work. the my is struggling. the median income in this country has gone down $4,000 under president obama. the other approach is the approach exemplified by ronald reagan. lower taxes. restrain government spending. empowering small business, empowering entrepreneurs. i'm proud to have the support of
the national federation of independent business, of the texas association of business thombing u.s. chamber of commerce, of small business owners in texas because my focus is going to be helping small business owners create jobs. that's how we turn our economy around. >> mr. sadler, why would you be the bedder -- better senator? >> i've done the things he talks about. legislature,the aye passed the bills, i've heard thousands of hours of committee hearings with texans from all over the state. i was in the legislature from 1991 to 2003. i left when my youngest son was involved in an accident. i served on a number of committees. i'm co-author of the education code, passed teacher pay raises, the largest property tax cut in the history of our state. i passed -- i was -- since then i've been involved in the wind industry and in that capacity aye also, governor brownback, the republican governor of kansas, asked me to help solve the tall grass prairie preservation in kansas and i
helped negotiate that. governor mary fallon in oklahoma asked me to help. governor perry requested that i went to morocco and got a memorandum of understanding between morocco and the state of texas. i have experience doing the thing he is talks about doing. >> we're going to move on to policy discussion. from the economy, to health care. what kind of system we should have here in this state. we asked voters and here's what they told us. >> i feel that federal health care plan known as obama care is a step in the right direction. we do need a more comprehensive health care plan. for'm a freelance artist, many years, i haven't had insurance.
there are a lot of other people that don't have insurance and i think it's wonderful that people can be supported. >> because macare is overreach by the federal government actually requiring citizens to purchase a product. i think that's a little too much. >> i think throw the whole system in the garbage and start over. >> ok. some opinionated voters there. we're going to start our discussion on health care first with a question to paul sadler. >> texas has many doctors right now who won't take medicaid patients we have right now. how to you propose to solve that for people who currently have medicaid and for the millions more being proposed to be added to medicaid rolls? >> we have to do whatever we can to make sure we keep as many physicians willing to take medicaid patients as possible. you hear two different stories. you hear a story from the doctors saying that they won't do medicaid but you talk to people that are involved with medicaid, the pearnts with children that are voed, the cancer patients dependent upon,
-- upon it, they say they have plenty of doctors and are getting great medical kear. it's always a concern. the fact of the matter is you hear different stories depending on who you talk to. i don't know that the surveys we've seen on the number of physicians not doing medicaid truly represent the actual numbers. i'm not sure that there's partition -- that there's participation in the surveys. that being said, we reduce it by making sure that medicaid reimburses the benefits, the payments that are necessary. we fund the local hospitals, i fought for funding for the local hospitals. i know what that means. >> thank you. >> do you think the government has a responsibility to provide access to care for people we're adding to medicare? and if so, how to we do that? >> well, medicaid has been a social safety net we've had for many years and i think we need to continue to honor that commitment.
if you look right now, medicaid is another one of those entitlements careening toward insolvency. harry reid and the democrats in the senate are doing nothing to step up and solve that problem and preserve medicare. we need leadership there. beyond that, how do you deal with low income texans who earn too much income to qualify for medicaid and yet not enough income to be able to purchase health insurance themselves? i think the answer are free market reforms, in particular, allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. if we create a 50-state national market, what that will mean is that texans will have available to them a lot more low cost catastrophic health insurance plans and the biggest barrier to access right now is the cost of insurance is too high. if we created a 50-state national market, we can lower the cost dramatically and expand access, allowing texans to purchase health care. >> we're going to continue with
this line of questioning. peggy will take it further. >> it's said it would be cheaper for people to go to emergency rooms to get health care than add them to medicaid as an expansion of the program. what evidence do you have to support that? >> the context of that question is, i was asked, gosh, wouldn't it save money for everyone to expand medicaid and put a large portion of additional texans on medicaid? and the answer was no. it's not a cost saver to do that. the answer for those individuals is what ross and i were just talking about. having free market reforms to create a 50-state national market so people can afford health insurance. that's a far better way than putting them on government provided single payer health insurance. >> how do you think they'd be able to afford the type of insurance available in a 50- state market? >> what you do ve deuce the barrier rerks deuce the mandates driving up the cost of
health insurance and with the availability of low cost health insurance, the basic principles of supply and demand operate in that market as with any other. if the costs drop a lot more people can afford it. >> and it's not working. it's not working. that market as in any other market, health care costs will go down. but we know, rural citizens know, that's not true. they're going up. you can create the market, 50 states or whatever, but the fact is that you're going to have people in this country who cannot afford the health care and you're going to have children that are in need of the coverage. i've seen them. i've been with them. and it's devastating. it's devastating for families. i met a couple in georgetown, he's a -- he makes six figures, his wife is a scot & white doctor, they had a child who is sick, that child is having to qualify for medicaid.
medicaid is there in the safety net because the costs are so greta families need it. simply doing a free market solution as he describes by itself is not working now. i'm not saying move to a single course payment but we've got to fund medicaid. we have to do that. if you want to talk about raising taxes, i'm not afraid of that. i'm not afraid of it at all. there are things in this country that are too important to do away with. social security, medicare, medicaid, are too important for taos lose because someone won't raise taxes. >> we have one more question on health care, i'm going to ask you to be brief so we can speak briefly about foreign policy this question first for mr. cruz. there's been a big discussion about women's contraception at
the federal level. should an employer who personally opposes health insurance that covers birth control be required to offer contraception coverage to female employees or should individual employers have the right to decide and deny that coverage. should all women get the same thing? >> of course the federal government should not be forcing catholic hospitals, catholic charities to violate their religious beliefs. this is an issue that's been subject to a lot of demagoguery. it's not about access to contraception. no one is talking about denying access to contraceptions. >> but having it under a insurance plan. >> this is crossing a
fundamental threshold. the democratic party for years was proud to be the first major party to nominate the first two catholics to be a candidate for president of the united states. and i would ask, what would an al smith or a john f. kennedy think of a president who says that catholic -- to catholic hospitals, to catholic charity, change your religious briefs or i'll use my power as president to shut down your hospitals and charities? >> you believe an entity that does not believe contraception should be covered should have the right to say no? >> yes, i believe the first right in our bill of rights is the right of religious liberty. as solicitor general of texas i was proud to defend religious liberty for the state of texas in front of the u.s. supreme court. i think it's tragic that
president obama and the national democrats are stepping on the religious liberty of catholic charities and catholic churches. i think that's wrong. we should be standing for everybody's religious liberty. >> mr. sadler, same question. should plorse be able to make a decision whether to cover birth control and contraception? >> i think women should have the right to contraception, regardless. i do. and i think it should be included in the policies. this issue has been resolved in my mind, i think, i just think this is an easey decision. women are adults. they have the right to contraception. it's a federal issue, it's a personal issue, it's a health issue. and how many times have we heard mr. cruz tonight blame the democrats? do you want to know what's wrong with this country? we spend so much time blaming each other. we can talk friendly to each other and we can find bipartisan solutions. if we cant to -- if we want to. but you've got to send the right people to washington to do it. >> thank you very much. finally, we take a few minutes that remain and talk about foreign policy. >> a lot of jobs including jobs in the local area, that's a return on investment society benefits from if. >> there should be no cuts as far as our defense of our untry is concerned. none whatsoever. >> our defense spending is in the trillions. i don't think it needs to be in the trillions. >> israel is our ally. it's always been our strongest ally in the region.
i don't think necessarily we should bomb anyone but we should stand behind our ally. >> if the united states participates in this combat, it's going to drag every other superpower into this. >> if you take an armored response off the table, but to me, it's action z. >> pedro has a question for mr. crudse. >> as you know, we have reports that he could die any moment now. if he dies soon, should the u.s. change its policy? >> if fidel castro dies, he has been a cruel and impressive tyrant but his brother raul is still a dictator ruling cuba. i hope if and when fidel castro dies, he seems to have defied all expectations up to this point, that it will lead to change in cuba. i don't think we should change
our foreign policy to cuba unless and until they stop being an oppress i totalitarian state that imprisons and tortures its citizens. i'm hopeful that when fidel castro dice, and it may take raul castro dying as well, we can change. >> mr. sadler? >> i agree with him. i think you have to see what comes after. see what our policies are after that. >> thank you very much. peggy has a question for mr. sadler. >> tens of thousands of people have been killed in the mexico drug war. would you support an increase of presence of the national guard at the u.s.mexico border in light of this? >> we have done that, we have 26,000 border agents up from 15,000 during president bush's tenure, we have the right to
defend our border and we should. that's why we have to secure the border. this is a complex issue in many -- in many respects. it takes cooperation between the yeats and mexico. as you know, i'm sure, there was an agreement back in 2008, i believe it was, between the united states and mexico where we helped with technical support and votes in aircraft to help with the war on drugs and the cartels in mexico. this is something we have to continue to balance because we're stuck in these stereotypes. el paso, if the people of texas don't know this, el paso is the safest city in america for a city its size. we have safe cities an communities along our border. this is a great economic engine
for our state. these are great communities, this is important, we have to stop thinking in terms of such violence in the valley and el paso because it's not the truth of what's going on in the state. >> there are people with concerns, however, should we increase the national guard? >> if it's necessary and needed and we can assist in curtailing drug activity, we should. we have -- we have to protect our citizens. >> mr. cruz? >> i already said, we should trip they will u.s. border patrol. the question raised is a very important question. mexico is a great and mighty nation. and it is tragic what is happening in mexico. it is tragic the violence. i was visiting with a mexican businessman some time ago who described to me how he receive fled drug lords a letter that
detailed where every one of his grandkids had been for the last week minute by minute. it is tragic what's happening in mexico. i think the united states should work cooperatively with mexico help the mexican government solve this problem, stop the violence and stop the drug lords that are terrorizing so many innocent citizens. >> national guard as well? >> more funding for the mexican military? >> i think we should work cooperatively. the danger with funding is unfortunately one of the real problems mexico is struggling with is corruption. its rule of law is so imperiled right now, i don't think we should be sending money when there's a risk of corruption. but we should work cooperatively to help solve the problem. >> we've had this agreement in place and it worked well. i think we have great cooperation with our past president of mexico and i think the new president-elect is supportive as well. >> in the few minutes we have
left, we want to hear from each of you and we want you to tell the voters about one personal decision that you've made that exemplifies the kind of character you'd be taking to the u.s. senate. you each have a minute. mr. cruz you go first. >> i want to actually point to two decisions. one, it is -- there's so much partisanship right now in washington. and it is relatively rare to see leaders willing to stand up to those in their own party. when i was the solicitor general of texas serving under greg babbot, the biggest case i dealt with was medellin vs. the state of texas. the president of the united states, who was a republican, issued an order to the state of texas to obey me world court and a as solicitor general i was proud to go before the u.s. supreme court, oppose a republican president of the united states and defend u.s. sovereignty. the second decision i would point to, how we conducted this campaign from day one. there are career politicians in both parties in washington. who they they're above the law.
who make decisions to get elected and re-elected. our campaign has been based on the groose roots. we have gone to literally hundreds of ihops and v.f.w. halls and denny's and the strength of the campaign has been grass roots across texas because elected representatives work for the people of texas. >> thank you, mr. cruz. mr. sadler. something that you decided or done in your life that you think exemplifies the kind of character that you would take to washington. >> character is formed over a lifetime. my mother and father probably, not probably, did and still -- did instill some great things and qualities and try to teach me about life but honestly the one that i think probably tested our family's character more than anything was the injury to our youngest son. when he was involved in the auto accident. when you have a child that's been seriously injured, he was in a coma for four and a half days, and your life gets put on hold. and we faced the prospect of
losing a child. you learn pretty quick what's important. where your priorities are. from a personal character standpoint that's without question the most important event that's happened in all our lives in our family. from a legislative standpoint, character and integrity is all you have. and being chairman of the committee doing the things that mr. cruz talks about requires character every single day. you don't get chairmanships and you don't get named 10 best without having character. and that experience has value. it has value for our state. it has value for our nation. it always has in this state. i hope the people of texas will take a look at that because it's very important. >> i'm told we have about a minute and a half left. >> i spoke too quick. >> has that ever happened? >> occasionally but not often. usually we run out of time.
in the last minute and a half we have. when you go to washington you'll take many skills with you. but there's always a learning curve on something. there's something where you're going to have to rely on others to get up to speed. what is the one thing, mr. cruz, you think you will have to lean on some of the colleagues there, some policy issue, where, you're going to need some help and you want somebody to help you find a way? >> as you point out, washington is a complicated place. it is a place that unfortunately has been broken a long time. i'll tell you what i have been doing the past several months of the campaign is seeking advice from those who have been up there, seeking advice from senator john cornyn, seeking advice from senator kay bailey hutchison, seeking advice from former senator phil gramm, all of whom have given me their insights on how to be effective, how to defend texas. >> is there something you want to learn more about or maybe you think your knowledge base is not where you want it to be? >> i'm drawing on their experience and show them -- i haven't served in the u.s. senate, neither has mr. sadler,
i welcome and rely on their experience about the institution, about the individual people in that institution and my intention if and when i'm elected in november is to put my nose down, roll my sleeves up and do the hard work it's going to take to fix these problems. >> mr. sadler, how would you get up to speed and is there a policy area you think you would have to lean on your colleagues? >> foreign policy. we're not privy to the security briefings that senators get. we don't have those things. i've been very measured in my criticisms of -- i've never been critical of mr. obama or mr. romney on foreign policy because i think it's important that you know what you're talking about. as a united states senator you need to know when to deep your mouth shut and right now that's the time. we aren't privy to everything they know. that's an area where i would look forward to having briefings and having the opportunity to learn more about. >> thank you very much, thanks
to you for -- thanks to you the candidates for joining us and my colleagues for being here as well for this texas debate. we'll make this program available on texasdebates.org. election day is tuesday, november 6. good night. >> see the final debate monday night. watch and engage. next, two campaign events from earlier today. first vice-president joe biden stops in florida, followed by chris christy in richmond, va. for mitt romney. later a new mexico senate debate. tomorrow on "washington journal," we will talk about consumer spending and the strength of the economy with neil irwin.
then a look at oil production on federal lands as well as mitt romney's stance if he becomes president. we're joined by rayola dougher. a discussion of reverse mortgages and possible abuses by lenders. patrick scott is the guest. live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> i have answered this question many times. it starts with the fact that from the day i was born until the day my mother died she tell me about who i am, who we are, who my brothers are, who my family is. i have never used the information about our native american heritage to get any advantage.
>> part of this race is also integrity and trustworthiness. there is a test that you take, and i believe she has failed the test. if you look back at what we are talking about, nobody is questioning what her parents told her when she was younger. but when she was asked by the boston herald why is harvard touting her as a minority, she said she does not know. after five weeks of misleading the paper's san -- >> follow the keep health and senate races. -- to follow the keep house and senate races. >> i use c-span and a business capacity. i love keeping up with the hearings. i was so thankful to be able to watch hearings live.
that is what i needed. i was able to watch a live while keeping up with my work. most recently i have covered all the technologies. cyber technology was the last one i watched. i did not want to wait for the coverage a couple of hours later. of course i turn to c-span. >> megan pollock watches c-span on direct tv. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> vice-president joe biden campaigned earlier today. it was the first of a two stop before the presidential debate on monday. this is over 40 minutes.
>> good afternoon. my name is barbra and one of my first questions is are you ready and you answered it. i stand with president obama and vice president biden because they represent middle class america. [applause] they are one with us. so when there was a chance to volunteer with the campaign, i could not say no. everyone has their story and why they're on team obama biden. and mine is one of winning a battle against breast cancer. now i know there are many people in this room can also share that same story. ten been cancer free for years but i was worried, always
worried that it would eventually return and i would hit my lifetime cap. and that my insurance would no longer cover me. it was really frightening to have that in the back of my mind. i worried what if i relapsed. but because of president obama and vice president biden that day finally arrived where i and millions of americans would no longer have to fair that unreasonable limit of a lifetime cap and worry that i would go broke just because i got sick again. \[applause] so i like -- so i like the name of obama care because to me it just shows that we have a president and vice president who cares about all of us.
but mitt romney doesn't believe that. he promises to repeal obamacare on day one. he says heel kill it -- he'll kill it dead which will let insurance companies deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions and bring back those lifetime limits. we can't let that happen florida, we can't. and the only way to make sure it doesn't is by standing by president obama and vice president biden because they have stood by us.
before i begin i want to introduce you to the love of my life and the life of my love. this is my daughter ashley biden. ashley is a social worker and a married lady but my mom was an irish catholic lady and she had all kind of expressions and one was a son is a son until he gets a wife, a daughter is a daughter all her life. so she took off work a couple of weeks to come down and make sure her dad didn't get in too much trouble. i'm glad to be here with one of my truly good friends. in the united states congress a congress person will stand up
and say my good friend from. well, this is my good friend. i want to tell you something about this guy. this guy has got a backbone like a ramrod and he has the most important currency anyone can posses i would argue in life, but clearly in the business he's in. and that is he's a man of his word. whatever he says, he does and i love him for it. folks before i begin, i want to remind y'all but in florida y'all can vote now. even before early voting starts on the 27th just go to your county supervisor of elections and ask for an absentee ballot and you can fill it out right there and it is done. if you're look around the country at places like iowa i hope it keeps up, because we're
winning the early voting. >> i know no one paid attention but we've now had three debates, only about 70 million people watched it. two between the president and governor and one with me and congressman ryan. and i think that one thing has come across pretty clear to the american people and this is not hyperbole, we have fundamentally different views on how to move this country forward. it is a fundamentally different value set. these are honorable decent men, they are good father's and good husband's but they have a fundamentally different view of how to go about moving this
nation forward. the differences are profound on foreign policy and afghanistan. i said the president and i will leave afghanistan by the end of 2014 period, no ifs or buts. because our job will be done. we have trained 315 afghanistan soldiers already. it is time for them to step up and take responsibility of their own countries and for us to come home as we did in iraq. but governor romney and congressman ryan and made it clear, their willing to stay. they say that maybe we can leave in 2014. their phrase is it all depends. this shouldn't surprise you because everything with them is it depends, it depends on the moment, it depends on who they're talking to. it depends on in the case of governor romney what day of the week it is. i've never seen a man move on
so many fundamental issues over a period of four to six years in my life. another place where the differences could not be more stark as the debate showed between our team and there team is on women's rights. \[applause] president obama, as i've said repeatedly, the president and i are committed to one thing and no one should make any mistake about this for real, because some of you may not like what i'm about to say. but no one should make any mistake that we are committed to our daughter and grand daughters have every single to opportunity to control their lives as my son and grandson without exception, every single one. [applause] you heard the debates.
it was made very clear that they do not share that view. they do not believe a woman has the right to control her own body i did. romney and ryan made it clear they're willing to impose their views on the public. it's clear they don't believe in protecting a woman's access to healthcare. the're willing to turn decisions back to the insurance companies. if you know check with your daughters out there, check with them. they get charged 50% more than your sons get charged. where pregnancy is literally a preexisting condition. i'm serious. under the obama legislation, that cannot go on. they're not allowed to do that. and folks, after listening to
particularly congressman ryan, because it was very stark, the view that he expressed on behalf of he and governor romney, how many of you think after a romney appointed supreme court four years from now row v. wade will still be the law? on tuesday when the governor was asked a direct question about equal pay for women, he talked about binders. that was true. if this wasn't so serious, you'd this think i was making this up. he came back and said i have binders full of qualified women. how did he have to go ask for binders to find qualified women? really, it is pretty kind of -- it gives sort of a window into how he thinks about these things. ladies and gentlemen, and he didn't answer the question are
women entitled to equal pay for equal work. and i want to tell you something, this isn't just a matter of equity and fairness. i don't want my daughter who graduated with a masters degree, i don't want her doing the same job a man does and somebody telling me she's not entitled to the same exact pay. i don't want to hear that. and by the way, nor does her husband, nor do your sons in laws and sons who are married because it's about economic power. it's about the impact on families. it's more than an issue of women's rights. it's about economic rights and economic power. so when a woman doesn't get paid equally the family suffers, your grandchildren surf, your son-in-law suffers. surprise it shouldn't
you he didn't answer the question. lillie't even for the led better act and all that did was say if a woman find out she's been cheated at work in terms of her just compensation, she can sue for just compensation from the moment she finds out. there used to be a law that said if she didn't find it out for the first little bit of time she lost her right to bring that action. minor change. ryan voted against that in the senate and romney's spokesperson said he would have voted against it were he there as well. talk about being out of touch. and now they're abandoning the core principles of this new republican party. and when i say new republican party, i don't mean that in a demograding way. this is not your father's republican party.
this is not the republicans you grew up with. not the people i work with and my colleague worked with all those years. this is as my younger granddaughter said this is a different breed of cat. they're good people but this is not even mitt romney's father republican party. but what have been the core organizing principles of this new republican party. and they have been championing it and they are smart and have a firm view. that is based on two things, massive tax cuts for the very wealthy because they are the job creators in these people's views. and significant cuts particularly in entitlements to vital programs out there because that's the only way to get the country in shape, they argue. it's not an illegitimate position to take. i fully disagree with it.
but that's been the organizing principle of the republican congress for the last four years. that's been the organizing principle of all the candidates who ran for the nomination in the republican party. and now after the convention, we find out -- no, we didn't mean that. no, there is no $5 trillion tax cut. you heard them say that. and now all of a sudden congressman ryan says his budget doesn't actually cut vital programs of slow growth. he's changed the whole view. i'm serious, here is what he says now. he says i do not cut those programs, i just slow the growth of those programs. well, that's the same budget that has already passed the
house of representatives with every republican but one or two voting for it and the same budget -- i guy has never been accused of being a liberal newt gingrich called right wing social engineering. and all of a sudden that's not their budget anymore. they've already passed it once and now ryan is saying his budget doesn't eliminate the guarantee of medicare, it doesn't eviscerate education, it's like romney standing in an unemployment line in florida and turning to the guy and saying i didn't out source your job, i offshored it. [applause] you guys may remember, you know me, i'm the quiet type. you remember about three months ago i was pointing out "the washington post" pointed out that romney when he was running
bain, and by the way honorable company and people. but the point is their job is totally different than the job of a president. their job is to maximize profits but notes th that's not the job of the president. so that's why "the washington post" looking at all the records of bain said that romney running bain was a pioneer in outsourcing. i was making these speeches about that is legitimate business enterprise but it's not the president's job. the president's job is to create jobs in america, bring jobs back to america, keep jobs in america. that is the president's job. now i don't know if you remember but when i made that first speech, the romney campaign responded and said -- they had some important guy responding and he said the following what vice president biden doesn't understand there is a difference between outsourcing and offshoring.
tell that to all those folks who don't have a job because the factory picked up and went to the cheapest place with the least regulations they could go helped by governor romney. iv ladies and gentlemen the president said the day after the debate that romney's plans had become sketchy. i'm reluctant to correct the president on anything. but i would respectfully suggest they're not sketchy, their etchy sketchy. you know those tablets your kids have. i'd shake that sucker. i'd dial in a new sketch.
let's talk for a second about medicare. with medicare they've gone to great pains to tell you how we have cut medicare, have stolen from it and have done all these things you see these adds about $719 billion etc. well ladies and gentlemen, i know there's no woman out here who knows anybody on medicare but some of you guys do. here are the facts and you know them. the facts are since the president has moved and streamlined the system, people who are approaching the donut hole and only we seniors know what the donut hole is. that prescription place wru have to pick up the total price of your drug cost, their saving $600 a year already. that's happened. now secondly, today if you go for a wellness visit there is no co-pay.
if you have a standard exam, whether it's a ma'am gram, no co-pay now. and in the process, we have guaranteed the solvency of the trust fund to the year 2024. so what they tell you is not true. but it's what they don't tell you that's most important. remember sometimes when your kids come in after curfew and they'd tell you that when they left but they wouldn't tell you the silent part was where they had been, you know what i mean? let's take a look at what they're not telling you. what they're not telling you is that their move would eliminate all those things immediately. and this is factual, facts are stubborn things, they matter. if they are elected in january and immediately repeal what we've done with regard to medicare and healthcare, you're
premiums will go up $312 a year immediately for those of you on medicare right now. that will happen. medicare trust fund will become insolvent in 2016 if they do away with the savings we put into the system. they don't want to talk to you about the premium support. it's a voucher. you're going to get this chip in the mail if you are 55 years or younger by the time you get to qualify and everybody will be off of medicare automatically. everybody is off. you can buy back in if you can afford to buy back in or you can buy private insurance with that chip if you can afford. but every study has shown the reason why they're doing is they need to save a lot of money for these tax can you please
tell us. the first one of these they passed in the house of representatives was passed overwhelmingly would increase the yearly fee for the same healthcare you're getting now by $6400 a year out of pocket. that's the congressional budget office. that's the referee. the democrats and republicans acknowledge. they went ahead and passed it any way. romney said he would sign it. then when that got no traction because of guys like bill nelson stopping it in the senate and he realized it was so unpopular, then what happened is they came along with a new program. without going through the gorey detail with you, it is still
going to cost seniors tens of thousands of dollars. there are three studies. the harvard study said it would cost somebody 54 years old a total of $60,000 more to have the same medicare, the same coverage they have now over the life of medicare. you guys now kaiser. kaiser came out today and said you would in fact, everybody going on medicare if it was in place now, it would cost you about $120 a month more than you now pay for the same health care you are getting. that is if it went in effect. that is what the kaiser family foundation said. this is not jobe. they found that the voacher program like the one today being proposed, today more than 90% of florida people, the
average premium increase for seniors would be $200 a month or $2,400 a year. this is a pea in a shell game. no matter how you cut it, their combined tax cuts for the super wealthy are going to cost seniors a lot of money out of pocket, and it is going to put great pressure on your kids and grandkids. the one thing i have a problem with from our friends on the right, and i like congressman ryan, and i do like him. but congressman ryan talks about we have to save this for my generation, his generation and so on. let me tell you something. like a lot of you, when my mom and dad got sick, i had the great honor of taking them into my home and caring for them. my dad worked his whole life, a hard-working man, and never did anything other than work. my dad when he was in hospice
lived with me for the last six months. i finally convinced my mom to move in with me. she wouldn't. my entire life growing up in a three-bedroom home in wilmington, delaware, i believe there were only four years we didn't have a relative permanently living with us who didn't need help. finally we equipsed mom to move in. and let me tell you something. like all of you, you have probably found the same thing with your moms and dads. the one thing they don't get is there is not a son or daughter worth their salt, that if mom or dad was in need in terms of health or economic need, they wouldn't make sacrifices with their own family to help mom and dad. i remember we used to lie like the devil to my mom. she said social security and something left from the sale of
her home. we would tell the druggist, whatever the price of her prescription drug is, tell her that it is covered. you know about us. too much pride. my mother would not have her children pay more. so when these guys say they are cutting benefits for seniors, how do they think that is going to help kids? the kids are going out there and make up the difference if they are worth their salt, and they are. they are from the families like we are all from. folks, it is time for these guys to quit hiding the ball. they say the value the middle-class. my dad used to have an expression. when somebody would come up and say this is what i val. he would don't tell me what you value. show me your budget. i will tell you what you value. [applause] folks, let's take a look at their budget.
let's look at what they value. they want to maintain the tax cut for the top 2%. they want it for the 98% of the other people. they say we can't give a cut to middle-class unless we take care of the top 2%. $800 billion that have tax cut goes to people with a minimum income of $1 million. that is a fact. $500 billion of that tax cut goes to 120,000 families in america. now all the national press is with me. you will not see one correction on what i just said to you. it is a fact. 120,000 families, and they want to be able to continue to get a $500 billion tax cut. the romney plan gives those same people another $250,000 a
year tax cut. what they won't tell you is how they are going to pay for it. you heard it in the debates. the experts point out there is no way to pay for it. he says what i am going to do is cut all those exemptions for the wealthy guys out there. >> ladies and gentlemen, there are not enough exemptions for the wealthy guys. the reason why your kids' taxes are going to go up $2,000 a year if they have a child is they have to cut all those so-called tax loopholes like the mortgage deductions for people making less than $150,000 a year. that is why it goes up. on balance it goes up. they said no, that is not true. well, you heard in my debate and the two with the president, the moderator or the president said governor, can you tell me one loophole you are going to eliminate. seriously, think about this. they can't name one.
not one will they name, because, folks, it doesn't work. they go on, and they cut medicade by $800 billion over 10 years by denying cutting the benefit they give to the states. they say you're on your own. that is 19 million people thrown off of medicare. how many of you know someone in a nursing home who first had to sell all his or her property in order to qualify. and then the only reason they are there now is because of medicade. they are going to get kicked out. where are they going to go? these aren't poor folk, and the poor folk deserve help. these are middle-class people who broke their neck their whole lives and the only thing they have is access to that home. ladies and gentlemen, middle-class children with disabilities like autism and downs syndrome, they are going
to lose the benefit. they eliminate all help to get to college. the $2,500 your kids are using to help your grandkids get into college, they would cut pel grounds for working class families. instead of signing a pledge with a guy like grover norquist -- there is actually a pledge signed we will not raise one penny of taxes for people who don't need it and are not asking for it. i come from delaware. we have a high her capita income. wealthy people are just as patriotic as poor people. it is time they step up and contribute more. instead of signing a pledge with grover norquist, they should sign a pledge to the
middle-class people saying we are going to level the playing field and give you a chance. what we are going to do, on education we are going to continue to fund and fund education. we are going to maintain the tax cuts to get your kids to college. we are going to recruit 100,000 math and science teachers so we can remain the best in the world. we insist on higher standards. my mother used to say children tepid to become what you expect from them. we expect a lot from our children, and they should expect a lot from us. [applause] second, on jobs we are going to create a million new manufacturing jobs. how? stop giving tax breaks that go overseas, and instead give tax breaks to companies who stay home creating jobs here.
there are over 600,000 high tech manufacturing jobs without the skills available. that is why we tied it to the community college. you walk out of community college with a good paying job. we have cut more than any administration has in years. it is all of the above, coal, renewable resources, wind, solar, biofuel. these guys voted against the bill that the senator passed which doubles milledge on automobiles by 2024, saving $1.7 trillion at the pump and 12 billion barrels of oil. [applause] on taxes, we have cut taxes $3 perkins -- and we are going to
make permanent the tax cut. lastly, we are going to reduce the deficit. we have laid out a plan for $4 trillion. we have already cut $1 trillion in the debt over the next 10 years. you know why nothing has happened? if you notice when romney was asked by the moderator, if you could reduce the budget deficit and it required any new revenues, would you support it? his answer was no, under no circumstances, none. as we end this war in afghanistan, that will result in a savings of $825 billion over the next 10 years. we are going to bring half of that to bring down the debt and the other half to build american rhodes, american business and american schools. invest here in america. [applause] folks, look. it is a basic proposition, about expanding the
middle-class and giving them a little bit of peace of mind. they got crushed by the recession of 2008. romney and ryan, their plan is all about the same old thing. the governor said the first thing i will do is sled/shred the regulations placed on wall street. that is literally what he said. he said shred the regulations, do away with the new regulations on those banks, continue these massive tax cuts which amount to over $2 trillion for people who make $1 million or more. folks, we have seen this movie before. we know how it ends. it ends in a catastrophe for the middle-class. nine million jobs lost. $16 trillion in lost wealth for middle-class families, watching the equity in your homes -- the price in 2006 for homes here was about $240,000 if i am not
mistaken. now it averages about $86,000. a lot of you who have been here for a while, you planned on that equity, maybe for yourself or maybe for your kids. it's up in smoke. tens of thousands of good people back in the states and cities you come from, they didn't do a thing wrong. they never missed a mortgage appointment. all of a sudden a couple of guys up the block had a whacky mortgage and got foreclosed on, and now they are upside down. that is what they planned to do, borrow against that to send their kid to college. all of this resulted in the great recession of 2008, and we will not go back. we have a different vision, a different value set. we don't see the american team in terms they talk about it, makers and takers. that is how they talk about it.
in a major speech that ryan gave to the spectator, he said 70% of the american people are makers, and 30% are takers. governor romney has said 47% of the american people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. that was his quote. well, folks, the american people should worry about that because he doesn't understand who half of america is. they were my mom and dad who broke their neck their whole life, millions of people working to pay their payroll taxes, other taxes at a rate higher than governor romney pays his federal taxes. there are those who all they have now is their social security, and they shouldn't have to pay any tax on it. there are also the 68,000
warriors that are traipsing through those god-awful mountains in afghanistan. i have been in and out of there 20 times. they should not have to pay taxes on that stuff. [applause] that 47% are the people who are the heart, the soul the spine of america. how many in this room are veterans? well, we owe you. and i think you would agree with me that this generation, my son's generation, and he spent a year in iraq, this generation has been incredible. they have stepped up. since 9/11, over 2,800,000 have signed up. over 2,200,000 have put the
boots on and god overseas. we have an obligation to our veterans and our schools. we have one sacred obligation, and that is to equip those who go to war and care for them when they come home. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, we have to on that sacrifice. i can tell you when you go to afghanistan or iraq, one of the most moving things that occurs -- i guess my sixth or seventh trip to iraq, a full colonel said to me mr. vice president, permission to board a fallen angel. they refer to our warriors when
they die in theater as aping -- angels, fallen angels. they brought in a flag-draped casket and strapped it to the floor in that c-17 and turned it into a cathedral. it happened more than once with me. all we could think about was the family waiting on the other end. ladies and gentlemen, every single morning i check the number of dead and wounded as a consequence of these two wars. as of this morning, 6,500 fallen angels. 50,010 wounded, many of them, close to 25,000 with wound that will require extensive medical care the rest of their lives. those of you guys and women who
were in korea and vietnam. over 50% of the wounds suffered in afghanistan and iraq, if they had been suffered in korea or vietnam, they would have been dead. but because of the so-called golden hour and the entourage capable today, -- triage capability today, they are alive. we owe their families an overwhelming debt. we must never forget their sacrifice and always keep them in our care and our prayer. and ladies and gentlemen, these are the men and women who really are the back bone of this country. [applause] let me conclude by saying to you that the american people are so much better, so much stronger, take so much
responsibility, and neither congressman ryan or governor romney don't give them credit. i have never seen two candidates for the highest office in the land who are more negative about the state of the country, more negative about the prospects of the future and have less faith in the willingness of the american people to accept responsibility. they talk about it. the phrase a that has been interjected, the culture of dependency. that is who those 47% of the people are. i don't recognize the country they are talking about. not where i come from, not where i live. how could they have such a profound misunderstanding of the american people? ladies and gentlemen, this election is about a lot, but it is also about who we are as a country. and i have got news for governor romney and congressman
ryan. they are dead wrong. america is neither dependent, nor are we in decline, period. [applause] and further, i will say to my two colleagues what i say to every foreign leader i have had the privilege of meeting with, negotiating with or taking issue with. gentlemen, it is never, never, never a good bet to bet against the american people. so ladies and gentlemen, we need you. we need you. we need your help to win the state of florida. if we win the state of florida, this election is over. this election is done. so go out there now and vote. we need your help. god bless you all, and may god protect our troops. thank you.
business representivities and employees here today. for your efforts and hard work, give them a hand. [applause] president calvin coolage once remarked that the business of america is business. his words are as true today as they were when he said them nearly 100 years ago. small business drives our economy, fuels or communities and feeds our families. [applause] small businesses like ours represent 97.8% of all employers. we employ half of america's work force and create between 60 respect -- 60% and 80% of job growth in the country. we know how very important those jobs numbers are.
i imagine you feel like i do. i need my job, and so do our employees. thankfully here at ball we have secure jobs. you will see trucks coming and going from a long hard day any minute now. i can't imagine the stress of being out of work and the anguish that would cause. unfortunately, 23 million of our fellow americans are struggling for work today. but it does not have to be that way. [applause] mitt romney and paul ryan have a plan for a stronger middle-class. more jobs and more take-home pay. and toe heart of their plans is put in place policies that champion small business so we can grow our economy, create jobs and get america back to work. [applause]
no matter who we send to elected office, they have a big job ahead of them. that is exactly the point though. it is who we send to office. each one of us will make a big difference when we go to the polls in a few weeks. so when governor romney's team asked if they could borrow our parking lot today to celebrate a little and talk about business, i said sure. and when they said governor chris christie would be joining us, i said absolutely. [cheers and applause] but before we hear from governor christie, it is my privilege to introduce our great lieutenant governor, virginia's chief jobs creation officer, bill. >> thank you, melissa. good afternoon, everybody. how are you doing?
[cheers and applause] we are 18 days away from taking back america. [cheers and applause] so i want to ask you the only question that really matters. are you ready to win? audience: yes! are you ready to win? audience: yes! >> you have to do better than that. are you ready to win? audience: yes! that's better. let me do a couple of real quick thank yous, and then we will get governor christie up here to say a few words. i want to thank the balls. melissa ball and the entire ball family have been so supportive of the governor, of me and of small business, of the nfib, of everything we have tried to do. but it is above and beyond the call of duty to open up your office in the middle of a beautiful friday afternoon and have 500 of your closest
friends come out for a rally. so let's give ball office products a round of [applause] [applause] i understand some of you got here as early as 2:00 this afternoon and maybe a couple earlier than that. thanks for coming and hanging out here with us this afternoon. i know there are a lot of places you could be today, a lot of things you could be doing today, but i trust you are hear because you believe in the cause of good government in america. you know that to get good government, you have to work for it and invest in it. by being here today, you are working for it and investing in it. on a behalf of governor romney, congressman ryan and others, i want to thank you for everything you are doing to help take america back again. give yourselves a round of [applause] [cheers and applause] let me say just a couple of things. we are 18 days away from an election that i believe will be a defining moment in the
history of our country. this election is about where our country is. the truth is our country is in serious trouble today. whether we are talking about these unacceptly -- unacceptably high unemployment rates and things not getting better. we are talking about the reckless policies from washington, d.c. with a $16 trillion national debt and no sign of things getting better. we are talking about the fundamental assault on liberty that we have seen from this administration over the past four years, the weakening of the standing of the united states in the international community. in all of these areas, the truth is america is a nation today that is in serious trouble. four years ago we took a very wrong path. the american people took a chance on barack obama. they were moved by his powerful rhetoric and his lofty promises of hope and change.
but four years later that rhetoric has faded, and all we are left with is a record. it is in every respect a record of failed leadership for our country, and it is time for him to go. [cheers and applause] so, melissa said it right when she said it doesn't have to be that way. we have a candidate in mitt romney and paul ryan that we can be proud of. i had the privilege of cherington governor romney's doctor of chairing governor romney campaign. i am absolutely as confident as i can go that mitt romney is the right person at the right time with the right experience to get america back on the right track. it doesn't have to be this way. [applause] so, we have 18 days to take our
country back. we have 18 days to work hard. the polls are very close. but let me tell you something. polls don't vote. people vote. this election will be won or lost in the next 18 or 19 days. and it will depend on what you and i do to identify our supporters and turn them out to the polls on election day. so everything we can do, every event we can do like this to get our message out to the american people, to talk about how we still believe that the 21st century can be an american century. we can do it. everything we can do in these last 18 days to get that message out. because i still believe america is worth fighting for, don't you? i still believe in america. don't you? [cheers and applause] now, last but by no means least, i want to thank chris christie for being here today.
[cheers and applause] i remember, governor, back in 2009 when governor mcdonald and i would be tarling around in a car or bus, and every now and then we would dial up a guy we heard was running in new jersey named chris christie. there was a buzz going around saying this guy might actually get elected in new jersey. [laughter] you probably don't remember this call, but i remember we called governor christie a couple of days before the election and said how are things looking in new jersey. he said we are going to win, and he talked about all the reasons why. we got off that phone, and we said if chris christie can win in new jersey, bob mcdonald and bill bolling can win in virginia, and it will send a good message, and it did. and governor christie has done a wonderful job over the last three years leading the state
of new jersey. this is a guy that inherited a $10 million budget shortfall. he balanced the budget the old-fashioned way. he cut spending and grew the economy. he has become an outspoken respected statesman and spokesman for our conservative republican values. we are honored that he would take the time today to come down to virginia and help campaign for governor romney, and congressman ryan, and senator allen and our entire republican team. so, i want you to give a warm via william to the governor of the great state of new jersey, governor chris christie. [cheers and applause] >> all right, everybody! [cheers and applause]
well. thank you so much. thank you for waiting. i had a lady in line here say you're late. i'm sorry, ma'am. the weather is pretty bad up there in new jersey. we got on the ground for a while. i am sorry we couldn't get up in the air and get here sooner. i know you have been waiting for a long time. i know you are not just waiting for me. i know you are waiting for 18 days from now when mitt romney and paul ryan are going to change america for the better. [cheers and applause] now, you all mow know i am an old prosecutor. those old habits die hard. and whenever you were trying to win a case, trying to drive it home during the closing argument to the jury, i always said to my prosecutors, don't use your own words. use the words of the person that you are putting on trial. use their words to try to prove your case. they are powerful. it's a powerful way to do it.
here is what we are going to do today. we are going to use the president's words. let's forget about mine for a second. let's use two instances. now a few weeks ago i watched the democrat national convention. i did it as a sacrifice and a service to my nation. [laughter] i watched it at home. i stayed on my couch. i made my son, patrick, who is 12 years old bring me a big bottle of water because when i hear that much b.s. i start to get light-headed. i had to remain hydrated and make sure i stayed conscious because i wanted to hear every word they were saying at this convention in charlotte. one of the most amazing things i heard them say was, the president of the party at his convention said the following words. i want you to listen carefully. government is the only thing we all belong to.
that was a little bit of moaning. i want you to listen harder to that. listen one more time. government is the only thing we all belong to. now listen. i'm from new jersey, and there are 700,000 more democrats than republicans. it's a blue state and a tough spot to be a conservative republican. but even in new jersey we were taught growing up that we don't belong to government. the government belongs to us. [cheers and applause] that is this president's philosophy, that we belong to the government, that our lives belong to the government, that our earnings belong to the government, that our families belong to the government, that we are pawns for him and the millions of additional
bureaucrats he has hired in little coup cassell all over washington, d.c. to plot and plan all of our futures. that is what this president believes. that statement can't mean anything other than that, that we belong to the government. i don't understand what else that could mean? that is him looking at us as his possessions of his grand plan. that has never been the country i thought we were. i have read the constitution, and i think you have read it, too. it doesn't start off we the government. it starts off we, the people. [cheers and applause] it's we, the people. we, the people who give limited power, limited power and authority to the government to help run a civilized society. we did not hand over our lives to the federal government. we did not hand over every bit of our treasure to the federal
government. we did not hand over our children's future to the federal government. those things belong to us, not the other way around. but if we re-elect barack obama , we are going to be looking once again at a country that he thinks should be owned by the government, that the government should pick the winners and losers. the government should decide whether a company like this is successful or not. i think that america should continue to pick winners and losers the way it always has based on three things. one, integrity, the integrity of each individual. [applause] two, ingenuity. who has the best ideas, the smartest ideas, the newest ideas? those are the ones that should be rewarded. [applause] and three, and most importantly, work ethic. because america has proven we will work harder than anybody
to get the job done. [applause] but see, if you belong to the government, you have to worry about that. if you belong to the government, the government will take care of your needs. you don't even have to think for yourself anymore. a nice club we belong to, the government. i want to tell you something. that is not a club i want to belong to, especially when it is not run by club master barack obama. now that community organizer may have worked in chicago, but it is not going to work as president of the united states. the second thing the president said recently was he said you can't change washington, d.c. from the inside. [laughter] i was listening to that one. i started to feel bad for the president. i know we have some media folks out there. you may not know this, but the
president loves me. he really does. he loves watching me on tv. [laughter] he loves the stuff i say. he loves me. so since he loves me, i want to help the president. here is what i want to do. i want to talk to you, mr. president. i want to let you know you've been living inside 1600 pennsylvania avenue for the last four years. if you don't think you can change washington from inside the white house, then let's give you the plane ticket back to chicago you have earned. [cheers and applause] i mean that is a scary thing for the president of the united states to say, isn't it? you can't change washington, d.c. from the inside. really? you can't change washington from the inside. it shows his arrogance. it he really believes that, if he believes that, then what the hell is he doing asking for
another four years? [cheers and applause] you could change washington, d.c. from the inside? that's fine. we are happy to give you a butt ticket to the outside, mr. president. and the worst part of that is when he says that, it shows even more about his arrogance. because what he is saying is it is not my fault. it is not my responsibility. it is not my fault. it is george w. bush's fault. it is dick chaney's fault, the coal company's fault, the gas company's fault. it's the fault of the republicans in congress. it is john boener's false, eric canter's fault. mitch mcconnell's fault, anybody's fault but mine. he says please, give me another four years, and i will figure it out.
you know what, mr. president i am tired of waiting for you to figure it out. [cheers and applause] i feel bad for the president, i really do. i do. you see, he doesn't know anything about leading. he has never led anything in his life. until we made him president of the united states, he never led anything in his life. now i don't want to be disrespectful to any legislators out here, but being in the legislature doesn't make you a leader. then he became a united states senator, and he barely showed up in washington, d.c. to take the oath of office before he started running for the president of the united states. then he spent the next two years running for president of the united states. he had been a law professor. the president doesn't know how
to lead. watch he has been like the past four years. he is like a man wandering around a dark room, hand up against the wall, clutching for the light switch of leadership, and he just can't find it, and he won't find it in the next 18 days. [applause] blindly walking around the white house looking for a clue. [laughter] looking for a clue. and the unfortunate thing for the president is this. it is that there are clues everywhere if he would just open his eyes and learn how to lead. there are clues everywhere. 23 million americans out of work want a leader in the white house that will get the government out of the way and let businesses like ball office products and others like them grow, and prosper and start putting people back to work. [applause]
here is another clue, mr. president. only you and the diems in congress wanted obama care. the country didn't, and we need to get rid of it, and mitt romney will. [cheers and applause] listen up, mr. president. here is another clue from the people. here is one little small clue. they believe they can spend their money better than government can, and they don't want your higher taxes. [applause] they want a smaller government and a smarter government that is more efficient. of course we want the least fortunate to be taken care of. america has always been a compassionate country. we take care of our neighbors whether the government asks us to or not. mitt romney knows we need to
have a government that is efficient enough in other areas that eliminates other spending so that we can make sure we do the core things the government needs to do, defend the safety and security of our nation and make sure that our least fortunate are given a hand up to get themselves back on their feet so they can start working for themselves and their families again. [cheers and applause] what we don't need, mr. president, what we reject, and what we will reject november 6, is an agenda that says government is the solution to every one of our problems. i heard the president the other night in the debate say governor romney says i want a bigger government, and that is just not true. well, governor romney is not the guy who has run up $6 trillion in new debt in four years as president. governor romney has not created new boards, commissions, czars
all over government that he is paying millions and millions of dollars of our money to, to machine plate more of the economy to get his desired result. mitt romney is not the guy who is looking 20 take money away from hard working americans and redistribute it across the country based on the government's plan. he thinks the american people ought to decide how to spend their own money, not the government. [cheers and applause] a few sundays ago before the first debate governor romney asked me to go on all those sunday morning shows for him. you might remember back then a couple of days before the first debate, the campaign wasn't flying high. people were feeling nervous about how the campaign was going and what the last month would look like. they asked me to go on those shows and deal with all those feisty hosts. i don't know why they picked me. [laughter]
and so they asked me. bob schaefer, george stephen curry steph, david gregory, they are asking me what is going to happen? how could the campaign turn around? is the race really over? i said to them you wait until wednesday night because mitt romney is going to win that debate and turn this race upside down. [cheers and applause] and you heard all the geniuses. all the geniuses on tv in the next three days said oh, governor christie stepped in it this time. he made a huge mistake. doesn't he know that governor romney is debating the almighty barack obama? doesn't he know you are not supposed to raise expectations
before a debate, that you are supposed to lower them? doesn't he know you are supposed to lie to the american people about what you think. for god's sake, don't tell them the truth because they can't handle the truth. they deserve to hear the truth. mitt romney is better prepared, smarter and more ready for the presidency, and i know he would show them that in the debate, and he sure did. [cheers and applause] you know what happens in politics. monday, tuesday and wednesday i was the dumbest politicians in america. [laughter] i was the guy that governor romney would never speak to again after daring to predict that he would win the debate and make this race a horse race again. but you know, the great thing about the media is their
principles are pliable. so on monday, tuesday and wednesday they were calling me a dummy, and on thursday morning, i was albert einstein, everybody. [cheers and applause] thursday morning they are all calling my office in trenton saying how did you know? [laughter] what did you know? when did you know it? how didn't we know? [laughter] i just looked at them and said here is why i said what i said. it is two very simple reasons. first, i know mitt romney. i have been supporting him and campaigning for him for over a year, and i have been friends with him for four. i know that every time in this campaign when mitt romney's back was up against the wall, when people were predicting he was going to finish his campaign, lose, be ended by other people, the competitive fire inside mitt romney said
no. ask newt gingrich after he beat governor romney in south carolina and sat on tv i think it is pretty clear i am going to be the republican nominee. and they went down to florida, and mitt romney wiped the floor with him. rick perry said he was the front-runner in new hampshire. governor romney stood on the stage with him in new hampshire and gave him such a whooping that he couldn't even remember which part of government he wanted to eliminate. mitt romney reduced him to saying oops. and now we go to barack obama a week ago wednesday. and you know, if i were on the president's campaign, i would have said so listen, give the guy a red bull or something. wake him up and get him moving. i watched mitt romney, and i
took him seriously, unlike some others. i knew he was going to do it. you know the second reason why i said it? because i say what i believe in my heart. i don't give you political spin. i say what i think, and that is what mitt romney will do when he's president of the united states. [applause] and so now with 18 days ago, let me tell you this. it encourages me so much to see all of you out here today because virginia is a state of consequence. i come from new jersey. we are not. [laughter] i hate to tell you that i am fairly confident that barack obama will be winning new jersey. we had a fundraiser in new jersey a number of months ago for governor romney. governor romney was there with a small group of people around 20 folks.
one guy was banging on the table, you must campaign and spend money in new jersey. you can win new jersey. governor christie won new jersey. you can win new jersey. can you do it. he took a sip of his water and looked at me and said chris, is there any way i am going to win new jersey? i said no, there's not. and he said next question. on the other hand, you in the commonwealth of virginia, you are a state of consequence.
>> another question from a student. the number of questions, let us just get to the first 1. >> previous governors were both against storing previous radioactive waste. why should we be the dumping ground for this waste other states refuse to take? are the dollars worth jeopardize in the health of those in our state? >> you heard my opening remarks. we have a found nuclear waste right here in our state.
and by the agreement with energy solutions, that nuclear waste cannot be put on our state without his signature. that is horrible. and then to think that we would of put on the energy solution -- on the board to oversee that, to meet again shows or there's extreme discrepancies on where we need to go as a state. we will not be a dumping ground and my administration. that is something utah needs to stand for. we have had enough of a problem with the downwind, and now we have a problem with side winds. you have to lead forward. you cannot have a conflict of interest with businesses, and that is a prime example why people in the voting population do not really want to vote in
our state, because they see things like this. and this gives confidence to my kids that there is not oversight. indeed balanced government. that is how it happens. >> your opportunity to respond. >> this is a dictatorship. we are est. of laws and a federal government of laws. whether they approved of nuclear will waste -- i will let them answer that. we know that we understood the role of law. there's been a permiting system that allows them to take low- level class a waste. it is been identified by the federal government. it is labeled. they are permitted to bring it here. their right to bring in as their permitted, for low-level class a waste. with oversight responsibilities as our state. i work with the federal
government. the issue that took place in not too long ago when we had some that got in that was mislabeled. got reassembled and came back as low-level class a waste, it was a mistake made by the federal government. does our people working out there that discovered it in the sampling process and went back and did the sampling and looked through the data to find 17 different containers that have been scattered out there. we have good oversight. the public safety health and welfare has to be the primary concern. but energy solutions whether we like it or not, has a right to be permitted and to store class a waste. and the research and finite capacity. once the best of is filled up, it will stop. and we will turn over responsibility to the federal government at that point. >> the difference between what a dictatorship is and is not is an
interesting point. i fought for a free country. i understand that. i understand class c -- it is a serious oversight problem by the governor, and when his radiation committee and everything else. that is a fact. governor, you keep trying to push away from the fact. you have got to stop. >> governor you have the opportunity to respond. >> i am not sure. again, you can distort the facts and draw incorrect conclusions. i do not stand up there when every plant of weast comes in and stick my finger in the pot. we do have of people that do that. energy solutions can take class a waste. there is no question it was
mislabeled. it has been discovered -- of people agree to be solution. the level of radioactivity has not changed. there's no public safety issue other denmark class a wastse. it is just unfortunate. -- there's no public safety issue other than class a waste. > > -- as governor, how do make state government practices and policies more transparent to people across the state. >> we have done a number of a thing as, and i had the same concerns when i came in as governor. we created a website where you
can see where the dollars are being spent. you can get detailed analysis of how we are spending the money and what we are doing. i got a committee together when i came in it. but can we do better? and we review every cabinet member. to see what we could do to optimize our services to the taxpayerand two, they found out there was 56 recommendations that we could implement that could improve it even better. we've done some wonderful things with state government to make it more efficient and transparent. we've managed the money really well.
we're doing more with less. we had 22,069 employees. at the same time our population has increased by 600,000. so we are doing more with less. the taxpayers are getting good bang for their buck. we've never had a more efficient government than the government we had today. >> and general cooke? >> in my opening remarks i showed all of the different audits that are being taken on right now by the government. so i don't call that efficiency. number two is can we be more transparent? yes, we can and we should. and that transparency starts at the top. under our administration it will be transparent there. will be nothing that you will not know about what's going on in the governor's office.
those secret last-minute meetings, i will not have monthly press conferences. i will have weekly press conferences. that's the only way we'll give confidence to the people to believe back in government. there is too many behind the door meetings, too many lack of openness and i'll tell you another thing i want to do, is i want to take our cabinet meetings throughout the state and let people in each part of our state to be open and see the transparency of our government and ask questions that we can meet and address because the less -- unless we get that openness in government -- i don't care -- i don't know how you come up with we're the most efficient because you're not. but transparency has to occur. my kids were asking me the other day, dad, explain to me what transparency means. what i've learned in the military is you don't have to be wondering when somebody is not watching what you're doing. that's how it is.
government should be open. it should be for the people. we should be servants of the people. we shouldn't hide our information. we need to be there for you and you will be there for us and we can give confidence and solve problems. >> rebuttal time? >> it doesn't surprise me general that you find problems. it's the political season. your job south bound to find problems out there. i'm sure if i gave you a plate of doughnuts, rather than seeing the donut, you'll see the hole. that's just part of the season you're seeing here today. being a good leader is getting good results and good outcomes. we're getting those. it's not absence of problems. we have rules and regulations an laws that we have to follow when we have problems. we've discovered them. we've taken corrective action and we've got good result as recognized by people outside of our state's borders. >> general cooke, your 30-second opportunity. >> i think governor if you'd give me a donut, i'd probably
eat it. but i want to say something important about the future of this government is that you know, honesty and transparency comes out and it's felt by the people and then they get excite about being back in government. i don't sense that. and when we can clearly talk about how efficient the government is, let me tell you, when i was a director for the state of utah, forbes magazine vote us to best place to do business. i can show you year after year for the last 20 years that we've had those same kind of great remarks from forbes and etc. >> we have time for one last question. unfortunately, i will have to limit your response time to 45 seconds only. >> dirty air and dirty water hurt our tourism. will you reduce the urban air pollution by reducing utah's oil dependence on cars? >> absolutely. and we have to invest in mass transit.
we cannot ignore the clean air. it's hurting our health. we have regulations from the e.p.a. but they were saying if we don't meet that we'll lose our highway funds. we have to address this again. leadership vs. head-on government. we have to meet that. >> we're working with the mayor from utah city. a few years ago we didn't use recycling. now we recycle. some of it is a cultural change. our state's fleet has been converted to gas cars. we've invested $4 million a study to make sure we're dealing with the issues out there in the basin. i just went to the valley with a
council. worked on air issues. all of us a have role to play, not just government but we as individuals and businesses have to come together to clean up the air. >> we must now close to closing statements. it was determined that governor herbert would have the first opportunity. that's not correct, is it? governor herbert, you will have the first minute opportunity. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to explain our visions for the state of utah as we go forward. i have a track record i'm proud of. wife had great success working together. when i first was inaugurated we talked about unprecedented partnerships giving us unlimited possibilities.
that clearly is of open as we see positive advancements in every area. is it perfect? no. but is it better? positively it's better. we have people working on education, transportation, health an human services, and in every area we're having success. people outside of our state are telling us about our successes, gives us accolades. that shows leadership. i'll finish by saying "the wall street journal" and talking about the successes of utah said that utah is the brightest star on the flag. that's because under my leadership we're coming together in unprecedented ways, giving us unlimited possibilities and tremendous effort in the state. vote for herbert on november 6th. >> governor cooke? >> i think the most important that could happen with leadership is to have balance, have balance in our government where people can have open
expression an we can feel that we're a part of a government that can make a difference. that's the most important factor of our next state. we can do it. we did it in the olympics. we can do it now. that will make this state that much better. the important reasons why i'm running is because that balance is as a military person, i fought for democracy. i fought for the ability to have nondiscrimination. i fought for the beliefs that we believe in our country for our children and our future. all i can say to you, vote -- a vote for cooke will mean an opportunity for us to move forward. >> gentlemen, thank you for your time today. we remind you that election day is november 6.
we encourage you to go to voteutah.org. on behalf of utah's public broadcasters, i'm frank bedoya. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i have answered this question many times. tiffani thay have was born and the day my mother died, she told me about who i am, who we are, and my brothers are, in my family is. and i have never used the information about our native american heritage to get any advantage, not to apply to college, law school, not to get hired for any job. >> part of this race is integrity and trustworthiness. and there's a test that you take. i believe she failed that test. if you look back and see what we are talking about, no one is questioning what her parents told her when she was younger. but when she was asked by the boston herald why is harvard
taught in her as a minority, she said she did not know. and after five weeks of misleading the papers and the reporters, she said i self reported. she has never answered why she in fact did that. >> all this month and up to election day, followed the keep races on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. today on washington journal, we will talk about consumer spending with neil irwin. then a look at oil production on federal lands during the current and past administrations as well as mitt romney the's stance if he becomes president. we are joined by rayola doughe/. and a discussion of reverse mortgages. and the possible abuses by lenders. our guest is new york times
financial editor patrick scott. washington journal with your calls, treats and comments. >> vice-president joe biden campaigned friday. the event was the first of the two date stop in the state. this is over 40 minutes. ♪ >> good afternoon. my name is barbra and one of my first questions is are you ready and you answered it. i stand with president obama and vice president biden because they represent middle class america. [applause]
they are one with us. so when there was a chance to volunteer with the campaign, i could not say no. everyone has their story and why they're on team obama biden. and mine is one of winning a battle against breast cancer. now i know there are many people in this room can also share that same story. i've been cancer free for ten years but i was worried, always worried that it would eventually return and i would hit my lifetime cap. and that my insurance would no longer cover me. it was really frightening to have that in the back of my mind. i worried what if i relapsed. but because of president obama
and vice president biden that day finally arrived where i and millions of americans would no longer have to fair that unreasonable limit of a lifetime cap and worry that i would go broke just because i got sick again. [applause] so i like -- so i like the name of obama care because to me it just shows that we have a president and vice president who cares about all of us. but mitt romney doesn't believe that. he promises to repeal obamacare on day one. he says heel kill it -- he'll
kill it dead which will let insurance companies deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions and bring back those lifetime limits. we can't let that happen florida, we can't. and the only way to make sure it doesn't is by standing by president obama and vice president biden because they have stood by us. [applause] they've fought for us and now we need to fight for them and vote for them. so are you fired up? [applause] you're ready for joe, okay. please welcome joe.
irish catholic lady and she had all kind of expressions and one was a son is a son until he gets a wife, a daughter is a daughter all her life. so she took off work a couple of weeks to come down and make sure her dad didn't get in too much trouble. i'm glad to be here with one of my truly good friends. in the united states congress a congress person will stand up and say my good friend from. well, this is my good friend. i want to tell you something about this guy. this guy has got a backbone like a ramrod and he has the most important currency anyone can posses i would argue in life, but clearly in the business he's in.
and that is he's a man of his word. whatever he says, he does and i love him for it. folks before i begin, i want to remind y'all but in florida y'all can vote now. even before early voting starts on the 27th just go to your county supervisor of elections and ask for an absentee ballot and you can fill it out right there and it is done. if you're look around the country at places like iowa i hope it keeps up, because we're winning the early voting. [applause] >> i know no one paid attention but we've now had three debates, only about 70 million people watched it.
two between the president and governor and one with me and congressman ryan. and i think that one thing has come across pretty clear to the american people and this is not hyperbole, we have fundamentally different views on how to move this country forward. it is a fundamentally different value set. these are honorable decent men, they are good father's and good husband's but they have a fundamentally different view of how to go about moving this nation forward. the differences are profound on foreign policy and afghanistan. i said the president and i will leave afghanistan by the end of 2014 period, no ifs or buts. because our job will be done. we have trained 315 afghanistan soldiers already. it is time for them to step up and take responsibility of their own countries and for us to come home as we did in iraq.
but governor romney and congressman ryan and made it clear, their willing to stay. they say that maybe we can leave in 2014. their phrase is it all depends. this shouldn't surprise you because everything with them is it depends, it depends on the moment, it depends on who they're talking to. it depends on in the case of governor romney what day of the week it is. i've never seen a man move on so many fundamental issues over a period of four to six years in my life. another place where the differences could not be more stark as the debate showed between our team and there team is on women's rights.
[applause] president obama, as i've said repeatedly, the president and i are committed to one thing and no one should make any mistake about this for real, because some of you may not like what i'm about to say. but no one should make any mistake that we are committed to our daughter and grand daughters have every single to opportunity to control their lives as my son and grandson without exception, every single one. [applause] you heard the debates. it was made very clear that they do not share that view. they do not believe a woman has the right to control her own body i did. romney and ryan made it clear they're willing to impose their views on the public. it's clear they don't believe in protecting a woman's access to healthcare.
they're willing to turn the decisions back to the insurance companies. if you know check with your daughters out there, check with them. they get charged 50% more than your sons get charged. where pregnancy is literally a preexisting condition. i'm serious. under the obama legislation, that cannot go on. they're not allowed to do that. and folks, after listening to particularly congressman ryan, because it was very stark, the view that he expressed on behalf of he and governor romney, how many of you think after a romney appointed supreme court four years from now row v. wade will still be the law? on tuesday when the governor was asked a direct question about
equal pay for women, he talked about binders. that was true. if this wasn't so serious, you'd this think i was making this up. he came back and said i have binders full of qualified women. how did he have to go ask for binders to find qualified women? really, it is pretty kind of -- it gives sort of a window into how he thinks about these things. ladies and gentlemen, and he didn't answer the question are women entitled to equal pay for equal work. and i want to tell you something, this isn't just a matter of equity and fairness. i don't want my daughter who graduated with a masters degree, i don't want her doing the same job a man does and somebody telling me she's not entitled to the same exact pay.
i don't want to hear that. and by the way, nor does her husband, nor do your sons in laws and sons who are married because it's about economic power. it's about the impact on families. it's more than an issue of women's rights. it's about economic rights and economic power. so when a woman doesn't get paid equally the family suffers, your grandchildren surf, your son-in-law suffers. but folks it shouldn't surprise you he didn't answer the question. lillie't even for the led better act and all that did was say if a woman find out she's been cheated at work in terms of her just compensation, she can sue for just compensation from the moment she finds out.
there used to be a law that said if she didn't find it out for the first little bit of time she lost her right to bring that action. minor change. ryan voted against that in the senate and romney's spokesperson said he would have voted against it were he there as well. talk about being out of touch. and now they're abandoning the core principles of this new republican party. and when i say new republican party, i don't mean that in a demograding way. this is not your father's republican party. this is not the republicans you grew up with. not the people i work with and my colleague worked with all those years. this is as my younger granddaughter said this is a different breed of cat.
they're good people but this is not even mitt romney's father republican party. but what have been the core organizing principles of this new republican party. and they have been championing it and they are smart and have a firm view. that is based on two things, massive tax cuts for the very wealthy because they are the job creators in these people's views. and significant cuts particularly in entitlements to vital programs out there because that's the only way to get the country in shape, they argue. it's not an illegitimate position to take. i fully disagree with it. but that's been the organizing principle of the republican congress for the last four years. that's been the organizing principle of all the candidates who ran for the nomination in the republican party. and now after the convention, we find out -- no, we didn't mean that. no, there is no $5 trillion tax
cut. you heard them say that. and now all of a sudden congressman ryan says his budget doesn't actually cut vital programs of slow growth. he's changed the whole view. i'm serious, here is what he says now. he says i do not cut those programs, i just slow the growth of those programs. well, that's the same budget that has already passed the house of representatives with every republican but one or two voting for it and the same budget -- i guy has never been accused of being a liberal newt gingrich called right wing social engineering. and all of a sudden that's not their budget anymore. they've already passed it once and now ryan is saying his
budget doesn't eliminate the guarantee of medicare, it doesn't eviscerate education, it's like romney standing in an unemployment line in florida and turning to the guy and saying i didn't out source your job, i offshored it. [applause] you guys may remember, you know me, i'm the quiet type. you remember about three months ago i was pointing out "the washington post" pointed out that romney when he was running bain, and by the way honorable company and people. but the point is their job is totally different than the job of a president. their job is to maximize profits but notes th that's not the job of the president. so that's why "the washington post" looking at all the records of bain said that romney running bain was a pioneer in
outsourcing. i was making these speeches about that is legitimate business enterprise but it's not the president's job. the president's job is to create jobs in america, bring jobs back to america, keep jobs in america. that is the president's job. now i don't know if you remember but when i made that first speech, the romney campaign responded and said -- they had some important guy responding and he said the following what vice president biden doesn't understand there is a difference between outsourcing and offshoring. tell that to all those folks who don't have a job because the factory picked up and went to the cheapest place with the least regulations they could go helped by governor romney. iv ladies and gentlemen the president said the day after the debate that romney's plans had become sketchy.
i'm reluctant to correct the president on anything. but i would respectfully suggest they're not sketchy, they are etchy sketchy. you know those tablets your kids have. i'd shake that sucker. i'd dial in a new sketch. let's talk for a second about medicare. with medicare they've gone to great pains to tell you how we have cut medicare, have stolen from it and have done all these things you see these adds about $719 billion etc. well ladies and gentlemen, i
know there's no woman out here who knows anybody on medicare but some of you guys do. here are the facts and you know them. the facts are since the president has moved and streamlined the system, people who are approaching the donut hole and only we seniors know what the donut hole is. that prescription place wru have to pick up the total price of your drug cost, their saving $600 a year already. that's happened. now secondly, today if you go for a wellness visit there is no co-pay. if you have a standard exam, whether it's a ma'am gram, no co-pay now. and in the process, we have guaranteed the solvency of the
trust fund to the year 2024. so what they tell you is not true. but it's what they don't tell you that's most important. remember sometimes when your kids come in after curfew and they'd tell you that when they left but they wouldn't tell you the silent part was where they had been, you know what i mean? let's take a look at what they're not telling you. what they're not telling you is that their move would eliminate all those things immediately. and this is factual, facts are stubborn things, they matter. if they are elected in january and immediately repeal what we've done with regard to medicare and healthcare, you're premiums will go up $312 a year immediately for those of you on medicare right now. that will happen. medicare trust fund will become insolvent in 2016 if they do away with the savings we put into the system.
they don't want to talk to you about the premium support. it's a voucher. you're going to get this chip in the mail if you are 55 years or younger by the time you get to qualify and everybody will be off of medicare automatically. everybody is off. you can buy back in if you can afford to buy back in or you can buy private insurance with that chip if you can afford. but every study has shown the reason why they're doing is they need to save a lot of money for these tax can you please tell us. the first one of these they passed in the house of representatives was passed overwhelmingly would increase the yearly fee for the same healthcare you're getting now by $6400 a year out of pocket.
that's the congressional budget office. that's the referee. the democrats and republicans acknowledge. they went ahead and passed it any way. romney said he would sign it. then when that got no traction because of guys like bill nelson stopping it in the senate and he realized it was so unpopular, then what happened is they came along with a new program. it's still the same voucher. the voucher is just works a little different. but without going through the detail with you, it's still going to cost seniors tense of thousands of dollars. there are three studies one of which says it would cost somebody 54 years a total of $60,000 more to have the same coverage medicare gives them over their life of medicare. another study came out today and said it was going to in fact,
you would have everybody going on medicare if it was in place now would cost you about $120 a month more than you now pay for the same healthcare you're getting now. that's if it went into effect. that's what the foundation said. this is not joe biden. they found the voucher plan being proposed, more than 90% of people in florida on medicare would have higher premiums. the average premium increase for seniors would be over $200 per month or $2400 a year. this is a pea in a shell game. no matter how you cut it, they're come bind massive tax cuts for the super wealthy is going to cost a lot of seniors out of pocket and it's going to put great pressure on your kids and grandkids.
the one thing i have a problem with from our friends on the right end -- and i like congressman ryan but he talks about we have to save this for my generation. let me tell you something. like a lot of you, when my mom and dad got sick, i had the great honor of being able to take them into my home and care for them. my dad worked you will his whole life and never did anything other than work. my dad when he was in hospice lived with me for his last six months and i convinced my mom to live with me and she wouldn't because when she was -- my entire life grew up in a three bedroom home for 19 years we were in that house there was only four years we didn't have a relative living with us needed help which and my mom swore she wasn't going to move in but finally we convinced her to move in.
you probably found the same thing with your moms and dads. getone thing they don't there is not a son or daughter worth their assault that in mom or dad was in need they wouldn't make sacrifices with their own family their children and themselves to help mom and dad. i remember we used to lie like the devil to my mom who is a smart woman. she had social security and something left from the sale of her home. and we'll tell the druggist whatever the price is tell her her prescription drug benefit covers it. here is the credit card because you know about us. too much pride. my mother would not have her children pay. when they are cutting deficits for seniors how is that going to help kids. they're going to go out there
and make up the difference if they're worth their salt. and they are, they're from the families like we all are. it's time to quit hiding the ball. they say they're from the middle class. my dad had an expression. heed say don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and i will tell you what you value. let's take a look at their budget. let's take a look at what they value. on taxes governor romney wants to maintain the tax cut for the top 2%. we want to for the american people. they say we can't give a cut to the middle class unless we take care of the top 1%. the top 2% of the bush tax cut, $800 billion goes to people of $1 million.
$5 billion goes to 120,000 families. you will not see one correction on what i just said to you. it's a fact. 120,000 families they want to continue to be able to get $.5 trillion over the next four years. that gives the same people another $250,000 tax cut. they also won't tell you how they're going to pay for it you heard in the debates. because there is no way to pay for it. he says i'm going to cut all those exceptions for the wealthy guys out there. ladies and gentlemen there are not enough exemptions for the wealthy guys. the reason why your kids taxes are going to go up $2,000 a year if they have a child is
because they have to cut those tax loopholes like a mortgage deduction for people making less than $150,000 a year. that's why it goes up even if they get a tax cut. it goes up. they say no, it's not true. you heard in the debates the moderator or the president said well governor can you tell me one loophole you're going to eliminate. seriously, think about this. they can't name one. not one will they name because folks it doesn't work. they go on and they cut medicaid by $800 billion over ten years by denying cutting the benefit they give to the states.
say you're on your own. going 19 million people to be thrown off of medicare. how many of you know someone in a nursing home who first had to sell all of his or her property to qualify and the only reason they're there now is because of medicaid. they're going to get kicked out. where are they going to go? these aren't poor folk. these are middle class people who broke their neck their whole lives and the only thing they have is access to that home. ladies and gentlemen, middle class children with disabilities, families are going to lose the benefit. they december meat education and a $2500 tax cut to help kids get into college. they cut pell grants for working class families. instead of signing a pledge as they have including the nominees to a guy name grover there is actually a pledge signed that
says we will not raise one penny in taxes even for people who are making millions of dollars who don't need the tax cut and are not even asking for it. i come from a wealthy little state of delaware. i found out in my years in the senate wealthy people are just as patriot as poor people and it's time they step up. instead of signing a pledge to grover they should sign a pledge to the middle class saying we're going to give you a level playing field. that's what we're going to do. ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you what we're going to do. on education we're going to under education and maintain those tax cuts to help your kids get to college, we're going to recruit math and sms teachers so we remain the best in the world. [applause]
we're going to insist on higher standards. and because we believe as my mother used to say joy children become what you expect of them. we expect a lot of from our children and they expect a lot from us. second on jobs we're going to create a million new manufacturing jobs, help businesses double their exports. how far give them tax breaks to companies that come home and create jobs here. there are over 600,000 high- tech manufacturing jobs available in america today without the skills available that's why we tied them up with community colleges so you walk out of the community college into a good paying manufacturing job. ladies and gentlemen, on energy we're going to cut it in half. we've already cut it more than half in 16 years. it's oil, clean cole, natural gas, wind, collar, buy fuel and
conservation. these guys voted against the bill that the senator passed and the president pushed which doubles mileage on automobiles by 2024 saving $1.7 trillion at the pump. on taxes we're going to -- we've cut taxes $3600 so far for middle class families and we're going to make personal at no time tax cut for the middle class and ask the wealthy to may a little bit more. and we're going to reduce the deficit. we've already cut $1 we have already cut $1 trillion in the deficit. if the notice, when romney was
asked by the moderator, if you could reduce the budget deficit and it required anyone new revenues, he said would you support it? he said under no circumstances. ladies and gentlemen, as we end this war in afghanistan, that will result over the next 10 years, a savings of $825 billion. we will bring half of that to bring down the debt and the other half to build american roads, american businesses, american schools. [applause] look, it's a basic proposition all about expanding the middle- class. we have to give them some peace of mind. they got crushed by the recession in 2008. romney and ryan plan is all about the same old thing, the governors of the first thing i will do is read the regulations and replace them and let wall street write the rules again. that is literally what he said. he said shred the regulations, do away with the new regulations on those banks.
continue these massive tax cuts which amount to over $2 trillion for people to make $1 million or more. folks, we have seen this movie before. we know how it ends. it ends in a catastrophe for the middle-class. 9 million jobs lost, $16 trillion in lost wealth for middle-class families and watching the equity in your homes -- the price in 2006 was about $240,000 and now averages about $86,000. many of you have been here and planned on that equity in your home in your retirement. he planned on that equity maybe for yourself maybe for your kids. it is up in smoke. tens of thousands of good people in the cities you come
from, they did not do a thing wrong. they never missed a mortgage payment and all the sudden they find they had those wacky mortgages and they got foreclosed on and the value of their houses upside down. they lost tens of thousands in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars. that is how they planned on doing what i did, borrow against that to center kids to college. the plant on that for their retirements of it would not have to depend on their children. this resulted in the great recession of 2008 and we will not go back. we have a different vision. we don't see the american people in terms of makers and takers. that's how they talk about it. in a major speech, ms. brown says 70% of the american people are -- mr. romney said 70% of the american people are takers and 30% are makers. he said people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. the american people should worry about that. he does not even understand who
half of america is. there were my mom and dad who broke their necks are all alike. there are millions of people paying their payroll taxes and property taxes and sales taxes at an effective rate higher than mitt romney paid his federal taxes. ladies and gentlemen, they are the people like some of you may be in this room or a lot of people you know, in fact, all they have is social security and they do not pay tax and should not have to pay tax on it. there's also 68,000 warriors that are trapesing to those got all mountains of afghanistan. i have been in and out of their many times, they are not paying taxes because they should not have to pay taxes. [applause] that 47% are the people who are
the heart and soul and spine of america. how many in this room are veterans? we owe you. i think you would agree with me that this generation, my sons' generation who spent a year in iraq, this generation has been incredible. they have stepped of. 9/11, over 2 million of them have signed up knowing that we would go -- 200,000 have struck on those boats and gone to iraq and afghanistan. we only have one sacred obligation and i think the veterans would agree with me. we have many obligations to our children and the elderly and schools but only one sacred obligation -- that is to equip those we send to war and care for them when they come home. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, we have to honor that sacrifice.
when you go to afghanistan or iraq, one of the most moving things that occurs is the first time i guess my sixth or seventh trip to iraq and a full colonel said to me, mr. vice president, permission to board a fallen angel. that's how they refer to our warriors when they fall in battle, fallen angels. they brought in a flag-draped casket and strapped it to the floor in that c-17 and turned it into a cathedral. all we could think about and it happened more than once was
about the family way to get the other end. ladies and gentlemen, every single morning, i checked the number of dead and wounded as a consequence of these two wars. as of this morning, 6500 fallen angels. 50,010 wounded. many of them, close to 25,000, with loans that will require -- wounds that will require extensive medical care the rest of their lives. those of you guys and women who were in korea and vietnam, over 50% of the wounds suffered in afghanistan and iraq, if they had been severed in korea or vietnam, they would have been dead but because of the so- called golden hour and triage capabilities today, they are alive but they will need our help the rest of their natural lives. we owe their families and overwhelming debt.
must never forget their sacrifice and keep them on her chair and in our prayers. these are the men and women who really are the backbone of this country. [applause] the american people -- let me conclude by saying to you that the american people are so much better, so much stronger, take so much more responsibility and neither congressman ryan or governor running give them credit for. i've never seen two candidates for the highest of his and the lad who were more negative about the state of the country, more negative about the prospects of the future, and have less faith and the willingness of the american people to accept responsibility.
they talk about -- the phrase that has been interjected in the last four years -- the culture of dependency. that is to those 47% of people are. i don't recognize the country they are talking about. number i come from, not try live. how could they have such a profound misunderstanding of the american people? ladies and gentlemen, this election is about a lot and it is also about who we are as a country. i've got news for governor romney and congressman ryan, they are dead wrong. america is neither dependent nor are we in decline. period. [applause] i will say to my two colleagues what i'd say to every foreign leader i have had the privilege of meeting with and negotiating with or taking issue with --
gentle man, it is never, never, never a good bet to bet against the american people. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, we need you. we need your help to win the state of florida if we win the state of florida, this election is over. this election is done. go out there and vote. we need your help. god bless you all and may god protect our troops, thank you. [applause] ♪ [we take care of our own brice springsteen] bruce springsteen. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪